B. S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.1.2005 cancelling the draw of lots, for allotment of plots made in favour of the petitioners on that date in the category of 1,000 sq. mtrs. and also for quashing the subsequent orders rejecting the representations filed by the petitioners in pursuance of the order of this Court.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Greater N.O.I.D.A. Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter called the Authority) announced a scheme on 22.10.2004 for allotment of residential plots in Greater N.O.I.D.A. of different sizes, i.e., 200, 300, 350, 500, 764 and 1,000 metres. THE Authority fixed 22.11.2004 as the last date for submitting the application forms. THE draw of lots started on 17th January, 2005, for smaller plots. Draw of lots for 1000 metres' category started on 18.1.2005 and lots for 36 plots were drawn. However, at the time of draw of lots for 37th plot, an incident happened as one person who was volunteering to take out the slip out of transparent boxes was caught with one extra slip which had dropped down from his person. A hue and cry was raised by the public present there, as they doubted the transparency in the draw of lots. An F.I.R. was lodged against the said person under Sections 420, 467 and 468, I.P.C. THE Authority could not proceed with further allotment and it was deferred for the next day. On next day, i.e., on 19.1.2005 the draw of lots started from the very beginning, cancelling the draw of lots made on 18.1.2005. Some of the persons who had been successful in the said draw of lots held on 18th January, 2005, but remained unsuccessful on 19.1.2005 filed Writ Petition No. 2192 of 2005, before this Court challenging the said cancellation, which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 20th January, 2005 directing the Chairman of the Authority to decide the grievance of the petitioners in case they file a comprehensive representation before him and the allotment so made was directed to be subject to the said decision of the Chairman. Representation was filed by the petitioners in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 20th January, 2005 and the same was rejected vide order dated 5.10.2005. Hence this petition. Shri Amit Khemka, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the act of cancellation of draw of 37 lots held on 18.1.2005 is illegal and without any justification ; nobody had examined the slip found in possession of one of the volunteers and it could not be asserted as to what extent it could affect the draw of lots ; there was no material in possession of the Authority to presume that the draw of 37 plots was not transparent or that it suffered from some illegality. The order of fresh draw of lots was made without waiting for the outcome of the enquiry and it was nothing but a pressure tactics which compelled the Authority to take such a drastic decision. On the other hand, S/Shri R. N. Singh and Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsels and S/Shri Shashi Kant Gupta, Manjeet Singh Ahluwalia, M. K. Gupta, Swapnil Kumar and Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that after the slip had fallen from the body of the said volunteer, the Authority decided to cancel the said draw of lots as the draw stood vitiated ; the draw of lots in favour of the petitioners on 18.1.2005 did not create any vested rights in their favour, which can be enforced through writ jurisdiction ; petition suffers from non-joinder of parties as allottee of draw of lots dated 19.1.2005 have not been impleaded. It was further submitted that if the Authority, itself, reached the conclusion that there was a possibility of mal practice and cancelled the draw of lots, this Court should not sit in appeal against the said order in exercise of its power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is exercised against the decision making process and not against the decision itself. There is no allegation of mala fide or bias in either the representations filed by the petitioners, or in this petition. Therefore, in such a fact-situation, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The first issue involved herein is as to whether in such a fact-situation, it was desirable to cancel the draw of lots and order for a fresh draw on the next date ?;