Lisa Gill, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of respondent No. 2 -Haryana Urban Development Authority, Manimajra (HUDA) contained in the impugned memo dated 06.02.1992 to the effect that industrial site of five acres in Industrial Area, Mandi Township at Tohana would be sold through open auction. Respondent No. 2 - HUDA had decided not to allot this land to the petitioner for setting up a unit to manufacture transformers.
(2.) THE petitioner company had proposed to set up the industrial unit for manufacturing transformers and respondent No. 5 - HSIDC (now HSIIDC) also agreed to take the proposed unit in its assisted sector. The petitioner -company applied for the allotment of industrial site measuring about five acres for setting up of this unit (Annexure P2). The application was processed by the Single Window Service Committee (SWSC). It was decided by the said Committee in its meeting held on 30.03.1990 that the land measuring five acres belonging to HUDA situated in Tohana, which was lying vacant, may be allotted to the petitioner -company if the Estate Officer, HUDA, intimates the availability of the land for allotment. HSIIDC had also proposed to allot a strip of land measuring half acre adjoining to the five acres of land mentioned above. However, it was decided by HUDA that the land in question, is available for sale through public auction only. Accordingly, the petitioner was advised vide memo dated 06.02.1992 (Annexure P17) to make his bid at the time of auction.
(3.) THE petitioner challenges this decision by terming it as a somersault on the part of HUDA and contends with specific reference to the minutes of the meetings of SWSC dated 30.03.1990 and 26.06.1991 that once the SWSC has recommended for the allotment of industrial site to the petitioner -company, the same could not be denied by HUDA. Furthermore, a concluded contract had been arrived at between the petitioner, State of Haryana, HSIIDC and HUDA pursuant to the meeting of SWSC on 26.06.1991. The utilization plan of the land and the necessary undertaking had also been submitted by the petitioner -company and it had altered its position to its detriment on the assurance of the respondents.;