V.K.SHUKLA - (1.) Writ petition No. 10714 of 2015 had been filed by the petitioner No. 1 through its Director O.P. Gupta, petitioner No. 2 initially praying for a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order/letter dated 19.11.2014 issued by the Desk Officer (Institutions) on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and praying for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allot a plot ad-measuring 10,000 Sq. Meters situated at Sectors-162/164/165, NOIDA covered by the Open-Ended Scheme for Development of Farm House on Agricultural Land 2010-11 (hereinafter to referred as OES 2010) with relation to the petitioner's application dated 08.10.2010 bearing registration No. 27, at the rate prevalent at the time of submission of the form or at such rate which this Court may deem fit and proper.
(2.) The reliefs claimed by the petitioners are on the ground that it had applied for allotment of a plot having size of 10,000 sq. meters in the OES 2010 within time and submitted all documents necessary and nonrefundable processing fee and earnest money of 10 per cent of the estimated cost of the plot applied for. The petitioner No. 2 appeared before the Plot Allotment Committee (hereinafter to referred as the "PAC") on 08.03.2011 and the members interviewed him and all the queries were answered to the full satisfaction of the Committee and it was orally assured to the petitioner No. 2 that he would soon be informed about further Formalities to be carried out with respect to the deposit of balance amount and execution of a sale deed etc.
(3.) When nothing was heard for about a month from the respondent no. 1, the petitioner no. 1 through one of its executives sent an RTI application. The said RTI application was regarding total number of the applications received, the total number of plots available, the complete details with names, addresses and plot size applied for by all applicants along with the date of receipt of such applications and the date of allotment, if any, made to the applicants etc. In between April to December, 2011 the petitioner No. 1 through its other executives and the petitioner No. 2 filed as many as three RTI applications and sent three letters to the respondent no. 1 seeking information about the criteria for allotment and other matters.;