- (1.) H. Paul & Company is a proprietorship concern of one Har Gopal Singh (hereinafter referred to as the firm). It was allotted an industrial Plot No. 1258 measuring about 4 kanals in Phase-I Industrial Area, Chandigarh as per allotment letter dated 8.11.1982. According to clause 3 of this letter the firm was to deposit Rs. 25,000/- within 30 days from the date of issue of that letter so as to cover 25 percent of the cost of the plot but it failed to do so and accordingly the allotment was cancelled by the Estate Officer as per his order dated 9.9.1983. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the firm filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh who dismissed the same on 21.3.1995. A revision petition was then filed before the Adviser to the Administrator which also met with the same fate. It is against these orders that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) We have heard counsel for the parties and find no merit in the writ petition. It is not in dispute that the plot was allotted to the firm on 8.11.1982 and it was required to deposit Rs. 25,000/- so as to cover 25 per cent of the cost of the plot within 30 days of the issue of that letter but it failed to do so. Instead of depositing the requisite amount the firm addressed a letter dated 22.11.1982 to the then Chief Commissioner of Chandigarh with a request that the former be allotted a corner plot no. 29/6 in Industrial Area, Phase-II instead of the one allotted. to it in Phase-I. It was stated that the firm was engaged in the manufacture of heavy cranes of various capacities the spans of which vary from 40 feet to 100 feet approximately having a weight of about 10 to 25 metric tons each and that whenever these heavy cranes are moved out of the factory premises for installation they mostly damage the gates/walls of the neighbouring factories. It was further stated that in order to avoid such an embarrassing situation which the firm had experienced in the past it requested for a corner plot. The then Chief Commissioner on receipt of the letter made a note thereon which reads as under : "Why not help him ? Corner plot is vacant. It is genuine requirement too." Sd/- 24.11.1982" When the aforesaid note was received by the Estate Officer, he addressed a communication to the Home Secretary pointing out that plot no.1258 in Phase-I had been allotted as per draw of lots and that no change could be made till another draw was. held after entertaining all such similar requests for the change of plots from Phase-I to Phase-II, The Home Secretary made a query from the Estate officer as to whether the petitioner had sought any extension of time for depositing 25 percent of the premium amount of the industrial plot to which the Estate Officer replied in the negative. No further correspondence took place and the Estate Officer by his order dated 9.9.1983 cancelled the allotment of plot no. 1258 Phase-I because the firm had failed to deposit Rs. 25,000/- within the stipulated period to cover 25 per cent of the cost of the plot.
(3.) Shri Ajay Mittal learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner was under a bonafide belief that the recommendation made by the then Chief Commissioner would be accepted by the Administration and that it would be allotted a corner plot in Phase-II and it is for this reason that the amount was not deposited. He further contended that the Administration be now directed to allot a plot and that it should have accepted the amount of Rs. 25,000/- which was remitted by the firm on 21.6.1994 through a bank draft. These arguments are without merit and cannot be accepted. The then Chief Commissioner did not make any recommendation and he merely suggested that the case of the petitioner for the allotment of a corner plot be considered. The Home Secretary and the Estate Officer could not accommodate the petitioner because the allotment had been made through draw of lots and the chapter stood closed. The firm should have deposited the amount within the stipulated period and could have also continued pleading with the Administration for the allotment of a corner plot in Phase-II but it did not do so. Long after the plot had been cancelled in September, 1983 the petitioner offered to deposit Rs. 25,000/- in June, 1994 but by that time it was too late and the Estate Officer was, therefore, justified in not accepting the same. Thus, the petitioner not having deposited 25 per cent of the premium of the plot in time, the authorities below were right in cancelling allotment of the plot in question. No fault can be found with their action.;