OM PRAKASH, J. - (1.) The allotment of the three plots : D-1, D-2 and D-3 situate in Industrial Area, Naini, Allahabad for which the petitioner No. 1, which was then a partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') applied, having been refused by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner and their allotment having been made in favour of the respondent No. 2 instead, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying : (i) that the allotment of the aforesaid plots in favour of the respondent No. 2 be quashed; (ii) that the respondent No. 1 be restrained from delivering possession of the aforesaid plots to the respondent No. 2 and (iii) that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondent No. 1 directing it to allot the plots in question to the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner while applying for the allotment of the aforesaid plots, claimed the status of partnership, but later, it was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The facts, as briefly stated, are that the petitioner carried on business of fabricating and manufacturing at their business premises, viz. 14 Mayo Road, Allahabad. When the respondent No. 1 published a scheme for allotment of plots in the Industrial Area, Naini, Allahabad the petitioner specifically applied for the aforementioned plots having a total area of 15 acres, vide application dated 28th July, 1985, which is Annexure-'1' to the writ petition. The petitioner paid Rs. 100/- as application fee and deposited the earnest money, aggregating to Rs. 7500/-. The respondent No. 1 duly acknowledged the receipt of the application (Annexure-'1'). In the said application, the petitioner clearly stated that the running unit situated at 14, Mayo Road, Allahabad, would be expanded and that the expansion would be complied within two years. The respondent No. 1 addressed a letter dated 22nd Aug 1985 (Ann.-4 to the writ petition) to the petitioner requiring it to attend an interview on 2nd Sept. 1985, when the allotment committee proposed to consider the project of the petitioner and also by that letter, the latter was called upon to furnish a project report of its unit in duplicate at and a letter from the General Manager District Industrial Centre (GMDIC), Allahabad agreeing to the transfer of unit from Mayo Road, Allahabad. The G.M.D.I.C. gave the requisite certificates, which are annexures-'5' and '6' to the writ petition. In these certificates, the G.M.D.I.C. also stated that since the petitioner possessed a running unit, no project report was needed The respondent No. 1 again vide letter dated 31st Sept. 1985 (Ann.-7 to the writ petition) reiterated that the project report in duplicate be furnished, inter alia Thereafter, the petitioner says that nothing was heard from the respondent No. 1 regarding allotment of the plots despite frequent reminders being sent to and several meetings held with it. The petitioner to its surprise received an information on 5-2-1987 from the respondent No. 1 that the plots in question had been allotted to the respondent No. 2 on 12-1-1987. It is averred by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 having accepted the earnest money, was bound to allot the plots, which the petitioner specifically applied for under application (Ann.-'1' to the writ petition) and that the allotment of the said plots in favour of the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 1, is arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner stated that in all other cases, the respondent No. 1 allotted the plots to all the applicants which they applied for and that the allotment was made on 'first come first serve' basis, but departure was made from this practice only in the case of the petitioner.
(3.) Both the respondents filed their separate counter-affidavit. Firstly, we refer to the counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 1. Pithily, the averment of the respondent No. 1 is that the petitioner deliberately omitted to submit the project report, because it could not justify the acquisition of 15 acres of land for the shifting of the unit, which is situated at 14, Mayo Road, Allahabad, on an area, being less than 2400 sq. yards. It is contended that the petitioner was called upon time and again to furnish the project report to satisfy the respondent No. 1 its genuine requirement of 15 acres of land but never the compliance was made. It is averred in para 10 of the counter-affidavit, filed by the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner runs its unit on a small scale and 15 acres of land was not genuinely needed for shifting the running unit. It is stated that the establishment of the petitioner consists of only 16 workers and for the running unit, load of 50 horse power only was contracted upon. For the year 1986, the respondent No. 1 averred that in the application, filed before the Inspector of Factories, the petitioner showed the total strength of workers being 17 only. The case is that the running unit is situated over a small plot having irregular size, total area of which is not mare than 2400 sq. yards. It is stated that all the machineries belonging to the petitioner, situate over an area admeasuring 153 sq. feet. It is also averred that the petitioner has not paid provident fund on the ground that it has less than 28 workers in its establishment. In para 11, looking to the size of the running unit of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 averred that the petitioner does not require more than acre land for its factory. It is stated that to prevent the respondent No. 1 from having the correct assessment of the area genuinely needed by the petitioner, the submission of the project report was deliberately avoided. 3A. In its counter-affidavit, the respondent No. 2 averred that no hint was given to it that the allotment of the plots in question was under consideration for the petitioner. It is stated that negotiations were held at a high level and considering the genuine need of the respondent No. 2, roughly 54 acres of land was allotted to it.;