M.M.KUMAR,J. - (1.) THROUGH the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 23.3.2006 passed by respondent no. 1 and to cancel the Regular allotment letter of Industrial Plot No. 184, Sector 8 Manesar. It has been further prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to charge the same price for the alternative plot as was charged for the original plot. The short issue raised in the instant petition is whether respondent no. 1 after having made allotment of an Industrial Plot in favour of the petitioner could cancel the same on the ground that the said plot stood already allotted in favour of another and then allot an alternate plot to him by charging current price instead of the price when the originally plot was allotted to him earlier.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 13.12.2004 allotment of Industrial Plot No. 184, measuring 1800 Sq. Mtr, Sector 8 IMT Manesar was made in favour of the petitioner @ Rs. 2500 sq. meter, tentative cost Rs. 45,00,000.00. A sum of Rs. 3,97,000/- being 10 percent of the price of the plot was paid as an advance with the application. On 10.1.2005 the petitioner accepted the terms of regular letter of allotment and executed an agreement alongwith pay order of Rs. 7,28,000.00 in favour of the respondent which balance amount to make it 25%. Thereafter the petitioner made several requests for possession of the plot but possession was not delivered to him. On 23.3.2006 when letters of possession were given to others the petitioner was shocked to learn that allotment of plot made to him has been cancelled. The cancellation letter has never been communicated to the petitioner. On 15.9.2006, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner Industries, Haryana. The appeal was dismissed on 3.1.2007 on the ground that the decision had been taken by the Board of Directors who were superior to the Appellate Authority. On 14.7.2007, the petitioner served a legal notice. On 18.9.2007 an offer was made to the petitioner for allotment of an alternate plot and was asked to deposit 35% of the more than cost of plot No. 191, Sector 4, IMT Manesar @ Rs. 5500/- sq. meter which was double the rate of earlier rate at which allotment was made. The amount deposited earlier was to be adjusted, without payment of any interest on that amount. On 12.12.2007 the petitioner submitted letter of acceptance under protest on the question of price. Vide letter dated 23.1.2008 the respondents insisted that the terms of allotment be accepted without any condition. Under this severe coercion and threat the petitioner who had no other option but to send the letter of acceptance on 31.1.2008. On 20.3.2008 a regular letter of allotment was issued by the respondents and the price charged for the plot was at the rate of Rs. 5,500/- sq. meter. The petitioner has urged that the action of the respondents in so far as fixation of price is concerned is absolutely illegal and against the law laid. The petitioner has submitted that the respondents could not charge any rate higher than the one on which they had earlier allotted the plot. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Industrial Assistance Group Government of Haryana v. Ashutosh Ahluwalia, 2001(2) RCR(Civil) 552 : AIR 2001 SC 1670.
(3.) IN the reply filed, the facts stated in the petition have not been disputed. However, in para 3 of the reply it is submitted that it was detected that the said plot already stand allotted earlier to somebody else and it was a case of double allotment. It is also averred in the reply that apart from the petitioner, there were number of allottees from time to time whose plots already stood allotted to someone else. The Managing Director also explained to the Board of Directors that the allotments during the period 18.11.2004 to 2.12.2004 was made after interviewing large number of applicants and the process of allotment was required to be completed in a specific time frame. Double allotment of few plots has been caused merely on account of change in zoning/plot numbers. It is thus found to be a bona fide error and no officer/official was to be held responsible for the lapse. Therefore, with a view to undo the unintentional wrong having been committed, the matter was placed before the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 13.2.2007 wherein it was decided to offer alternate plot available in any of the Industrial Estates on certain conditions, (Annexure R.1).;