R.P.SETHI, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of allotment of plot in favour of respondent No. 3 measuring 3 acres situated in the industrial estate Barwala, this petition has been filed for not only setting aside the order of allotment but also the new policy for allotment/transfer/resumption of plots/sheds in the industrial estates dated 25. 3. 1988 Annexure P/2, mainly on the grounds of being violative of the provisions of the fundamental rights as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. It is contended that wide unguided, discretionary powers have been vested in the respondent-stale with the result that the rural industrial entrepreneurs like the petitioners have been deprived of getting the benefit of the industrial policy of the State of Haryana formulated and advertised from time to time.
(2.) IT is contended that respondent No. 1 carved out a rural industrial estate at Barwala, Tehsil and District Hissar in the year 1962-63 which is situated within the municipal limits of Barwala and abuts on the Hissar, Chandigarh G. T. Road. The peculiar location of the rural industrial estate has made the land comprised therein extremely of valuable. The respondents have been following the policy of allotment of plots or construction of sheds in the aforesaid industrial estate on the basis of the guidelines and regulations issued in that behalf. According to the aforesaid guidelines and regulations whenever the official respondents intended to allot a plot/shed in an industrial area to the entrepreneurs the intention was widely publicised by giving a public notice inviting application in the prescribed form from the interested parties. Such a policy was followed till 253. 1988 when Annexure P/2 was issued changing the policy and directing that allotments shall be made on the principle of "first come first served". The disputed plot is admitted to be lying vacant for a considerable period of time and no public notice whatsoever was issued inviting applications from the interested parties for the allotment of the said plot. S/shri Bajrang Dass and Raj Kumar partners of the respondent firm are stated to be the sons of Shri Jai Narain who was the President of the Municipal Committee of Barwala at the relevant time when the impugned allotment was made. It is submitted that said Shri Jai Narain is a member of the Lok Dal Political party which was in power in the State of Haryana at the relevant time. Soon after being elected president of the Municipal Committee, Shri Jai Narain is alleged to have asserted his influence and got the plot allotted in favour of respondent No. 4. It is submitted that the plot was allotted to respondent No. 4 for a consideration of Rs. eight lacs only whereas the market value of the said plot was about Rs. fifteen lacs at the time of the filing of the petition in the year 1969. The allotment being contrary to the earlier prevalent policy and violative of fundamental rights is sought to be quashed. In the written statement filed no behalf of official respondents, the carving out of the industrial estate at Barwala and the existence of the disputed plot for allotment has been admitted. It is submitted that as per the allotment policy, Annexure V/2, which was approved by the State Government, the cases of two parties namely Shri Kapoor Singh Poonia and M/s Aggarwal Cotton and Ginning Pressing Factory were received which were placed before the Second Line Committee in its meeting held on 11. 4. 1988. On the recommendations of the said committee, the Director of Industries approached the government for allotment of the said plot for setting up of the project of Cotton and Ginning Pressing Factory in favour of respondent No. 4. Shri Kapoor Singh Poonia who had also applied for the allotment of the plot is alleged to have not submitted the project report which was essential for considering his claim. The State Government is said to have examined the proposal of the Director of Industries and accorded approval to allot the land either at Collector rate or by adding 10% in the initial cost of the land from the year of inception, whichever was higher in favour of respondent No. 4. The cost as per the policy by adding 10 percent from the year of inception was worked out at Rs. 6. 13 per square yard. The Collector vide his letter, Annexure R/1, indicated the rate of the plot at Rs. 3 lakhs per acre Khasra No. 508/8/2 and Rs. 2. 5. lakhs for Khasra No. 477/22, 23 and 508/2, 3/1. Since the Collector's rate were higher than the rates worked out as per the policy, a provisional letter of allotment was issued as per Collector's rate in favour of respondent No. 4 who was asked to deposit 25 percent of the cost within thirty days and to complete the other formalities. Despite the expiry of six months period on 30. 6. 1989, the respondent No. 4 did not report the completion of any of the above referred four conditions for which a show-cause notice was served upon the said respondent on 2. 8. 1989 asking them to show-cause as to why the allotment of the land made in their favour be not cancelled. The petitioner is stated to have never applied for the allotment of the land nor expressed his intention to set up any industry. The basic idea of issuance of the policy impugned in this writ petition was to industrialise non potential town by providing the available plots to the prospective entrepreneurs easily and quickly on the principle of "first come first served basis. " The policy is stated to be legally valid requiring no interference. The writ petition is alleged to be mis-conceived.
(3.) IN the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, it is submitted that no entrepreneur was available for starting any factory so far as the industrial estate in Barwala was concerned which prompted the official respondents to formulate the policy impugned and to allot the plot to respondent No. 4 particularly when the petitioner had neither applied nor expressed his desire to start any factory in the industrial estate of Barwala. It is further contended that answering respondent and one Kapur Chand applied for the allotment of the aforesaid plot for which purpose they were interviewed on 11. 4. 1988. It is submitted that representative of respondent No. 4 faired better than Mr. Kapur Chand with the result that the allotment was made in their favour. It is contended that the plot in dispute could not have fetched the government price on which the same was decided to be allotted to the said respondent. The relationship of S/shri Bajrang Dass Raj Kumar and Jai Narain, President of the Municipal Committee, Barwaia is not denied but it is submitted that the said Shri Jai Narain had nothing to do with the Lok Dal party which was in power in the State of Haryana at the relevant time as he had fought and won the election of the President of the Municipal Committee as an independent candidate. It is contended that Shri Jai Narain had nothing to do with the allotment of the plot or with the partnership firm, that is, respondent No. 4. The answering respondent claims to be resident of Uklana, the address shown in his application filed for allotment of plot. The policy decision is claimed to be perfectly legal, valid and according to law and the allotment order did not suffer from any infirmity.;