ISRANI, J. - (1.) IN all the writ petitions, mentioned above, it has been prayed that the orders, by which, the plots allotted to each of the petitioners, for establishing Nursing Homes, were cancelled, be quashed and set aside. Since in these petitions, a common question of law has been raised, they are decided by one single order. The facts & Annextures, as stated in Writ Petition No. 7/91, are mentioned to understand the legal question raised in these petitions.
(2.) THE Respondent RIICO published an advertisement on February 19, 1988, in Rajasthan Patrika (Annx. 1), by which, applications were invited from Doctors for allotment of plots existing in the Industrial area of RIICO, at various places in Rajasthan. THE petitioner, in response to the said advertisement, applied on December 15, 1988, for allotment of a plot to him in Jaipur, since he is a Doctor of repute and Specialised in heart diseases. On December 20, 1988, the respondent asked the petitioner for payment of 25% of the total cost of plot, which was to be allotted for establishing a Nursing Home/hospital in Sanganer industrial area, at Jaipur. THE petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 75,000/- vide Anx. 2 dated January 25, 1989 and further amount of Rs. 75,000/- vide Anx. 3 dated March 20, 1989, as directed by the respondent vide Anx. 4 dated December 22, 1988. THE petitioner also complied with condition (b) of Anx. 4, by providing documentary proof for an amount equivalent to five percent of the total investment to the satisfaction of the respondent. Vide Anx. 5 dated February 4, 1989, the petitioner was informed by the respondent that the management has considered his application for allotment of one thousand square metres land and was asked to send the required information, as mentioned therein, before March, 20, 1989. Vide Anx. 6a dated February 21, 1989, the petitioner informed the respondent, regarding compliance of all points, except point, No. 2 and stated that he will deposit the development charges before March 20, 1989. Vide Anx. 6b of the same date, a project report was sent for Nursing Home/clinic. Vide Anx. 6c of the same date, a lay out plan of the Nursing Home/heart House was also given. Vide Anx. 7 dated April 3, 1989, the respondent issued an allotment letter, regarding plot No. S-2, measuring one thousand square metres, at Sanganer industrial area, for setting up Nursing Home, on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Vide Anx. 15 dated April 9, 1990, the respondent asked the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1510/-, regarding service charges and economic rent, which was deposited vide photostat copy of receipt Anx. 14 dated April 21, 1990. Vide Anx. 9 dated December 27, 1989, the respondent asked the petitioner to submit a comprehensive project report alongwith details and prospective blue print, which was done vide letter dated February 26, 1990 (Anx. 10 ). THEreafter, possession of the allotted plot No. SP-2 was given to the petitioner on March 3, 1990 as is clear from the copy of possession letter dated March 3, 1990 (Anx. 11 ). Vide Anx. 12, the respondent asked the petitioner to execute a lease-deed, regarding allotted plot Anx. 13 is the site plan attached with the said letter. THE petitioner, on July 17, 1990 (Anx. 16), requested the respondent for getting the lease-deed executed, since he had completed all the conditions. He further stated that construction of Nursing Home has been already delayed by one year, on this account. A further representation in this regard was sent on August 21, 1990 (Anx. 17 ). THE petitioner, all of a sudden, received a letter dated December 19, 1990 (Anx. 18) informing him that the plot allotted to the petitioner has been cancelled and that a cheque, regarding the amount deposited by the petitioner, plus nine percent interest thereon, is sent alongwith the said letter. Hence, this petition. The respondent, in its return, in para 4 has stated that no prior approval of the Infra-structure Development Committee (for Short, 'id Committee') of RIICO was taken before making the allotment in favour of the-petitioner, hence the said allotment canno be said to be legal, valid and proper. It is submitted that lease-deed was not executed, since the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was not valid and legal. It is further submitted that the letter dated December 19, 1990 (Anx. 18), regarding cancellation of allotment, was issued in pursuance to the decision of the ID Committee. It is also submitted that since Hospitals/nursing Homes were categorised as "industry" with a view to attain the broad objective of health for every one by 2000 AD. , the then Chairman and Managing Director of RIICO decided to take up the promotion of viable hospitals and nursing homes all over Rajasthan in private sector and invited applications for allotment of plots for the above purpose. Forty Doctors applied for allotment of the land in different areas, in closing cheques/demand drafts for twenty five precent of the land cost. Twenty seven applications were received for Malviya Industrial area, six for Sanganer Industrial Area and 7 for Vishwakarma Industrial Area. The RIICO, keeping in view the potential and land cost incidence in the project, fixed the rate of allotment for various industrial areas, i. e. Rs. 200/- per sq. m. for Malviya, Rs. 150/- per sq. m. for Sanganer and Rs. 125/-per sq. m. for Vishwakarma. The project reports and construction plans were called from the applicants, but the same have not been approved, till today in respect of any of the allottees. It is further pleaded in para 5 that it was mandatory to have got these allotments approved from the ID Committee, which was not done. A representation was also made to the Hon'ble Minister for Industries against the allotments, which was forwarded to the Corporation, with a direction to cancel/suspend the allotments. The entire matter was placed before the ID Committee which, in its meeting, held on November 30, 1990 came to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to establish so many hospitals/clinics in the industrial areas of the Corporation and that the approval of the ID Committee was not obtained. Therefore the allotments made be cancelled and refund be made to the applicants of the amount deposited by them towards the cost of the land alongwith simple interest at 9% per annum, to be calculated from the date of deposit. It was submitted by the learned counsel that this reply or similar reply filed in any other petition may be read in respect of all the petitions. It is submitted by the learned counsel for all the petitioners that in Petition No. 7/91, the petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions laid down by the respondent and has deposited total amount of the cost of the land allotted to him. The lease deed was not executed, inspite of several representations given by the petitioner. Anx. 18, cancelling the allotment of the petitioner, mentions no reason for the same and has been issued arbitrarily, illegally and with mala fide intention. It is further submitted that since the petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions of the allotment, as laid down in Anx. 7, the principles of "promissory estoppel" will apply and the respondent now, cannot be allowed to cancel the allotment of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the contract is now complete and respondent cannot go back on the same. All the petitioners shall suffer heavily on account of price escalation, since the cost of construction has gone higher by at least 50%. The land was allotted for particular object, which has been fulfilled. It is further pointed out that it was not necessary to get the allotments approved by the ID Committee and even if it was necessary, it is internal matter of the respondent RIICO, for which the petitioners cannot be held to be liable. At the most, it is an irregularity and not an illegality. No reason has been shown in any of the letters of cancellation issued to various allottees and the plea of prior approval by the ID Committee is only an after thought to cover the arbitrary, illegal and mala fide action of the RIICO. It is also pointed out that substantive right has been created in each of the petitioners, which cannot now be taken away; In writ petition No. 72/91, it is submitted that even two rooms have been constructed and the clinic has already started functioning. It is further submitted that cyclostyled letters, regarding cancellation of allotments, were sent to each of the petitioners, which show no application of mind and arbitrariness of the action. It is contended by Mr. A. K. Sharma and Mr. R. C. Chaudhary, learned counsel for RIICO, that as per RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979, it was mandatory to get prior approval of the ID Committee, regarding making allotments in favour of the petitioners. It is further contended that as per Schedule of Delegation of Powers of the Committees of the Board of Directors of RIICO, the ID Committee has been delegated powers, inter alia, to approve terms and conditions of allotment of plots. This, however, was not done. It is also contended that the ID Committee felt that considering all relevant factors, it will not be advisable to establish so many hospital/ clinics in the industrial areas of the Corporation. Therefore, such allotments cannot be said to be legal, valid and proper. It is pointed out that lease deed has not been executed so far, therefore, the allotments cannot be said to be complete, in all respects. The petitioners have no subsisting rights in the plots allotted, since the amount deposited by each of the petitioners alongwith interest at 9% per annum was returned back to them, even though, the same was not accepted. The cancellation of allotment was made for the reasons mentioned above and as such, it cannot be termed to be either mala fide or arbitrary in any way. It is further pointed out that a representation was received by the Hon'ble Minister for Industries, against the said allotments, which was forwarded to RIICO, with a direction to cancel/ suspend the allotments. I have heard both the parties and gone through the documents on record. Before the legal aspect of the matter is examined, it will be appropriate to briefly go through the factual aspect of each petition. The factual aspect of Petition No. 7/91 has been already discussed in detail above. In Petition No. 57/91, allotment was made vide Anx. 2 dated December 23, 1989. The total amount was deposited as required by RIICO. On December 29, 1989, possession letter (Anx. 4) was issued and possession was handed over vide Anx. 3 of the same date. On January 19, 1990, lease deed was executed vide Anx. 5. On June 22, 1990 (Anx. 7), the petitioner applied to be given permission for construction. However, on December 19, 1990, vide Anx. 7, the allotment was cancelled. In Petition No. 72/91, on deposit of full cost of the land, allotment letter dated January 4, 1991 (Anx. 9) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was handed over possession of the plot vide Anx. 11 dated January 6, 1990. The project report, as required, was given vide Anx. 8 and plans of construction were submitted vide Anx. 12. Vide Anx. 12-A, a request was made to RIICO for issuing the plans, so that, construction can be commenced. Anx. 13 is bill of RSEB, regarding electric consumption and Anx. 14 is bill of water consumed. Water connection was supplied by RIICO. Anx. 15 is advertisement, regarding starting of medical services in two rooms, which were constructed on the plot. In Petition No. 112/91, vide Anx. 5 dated March 3, 1989, land was allotted to the petitioner in Malviya Nagar Industrial Area. The Petitioner had already deposited Rs. 50,000/- vide Anx. 4 dated January 9, 1989 and vide Anx. 6 deposited the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- plus Rs. 500/- as Security deposit. He was called upon to furnish security vide Anx. 7 dated December 27, 1989 which was furnished vide letter dated December 27, 1989. Allotment letter dated December 23, 1989 (Anx. 8) was issued to the petitioner, on the terms and conditions, mentioned therein. Site plan (Anx. 10) was issued to the petitioner, regarding plot No. SP-1. Vide Anx. 12 dated December 19, 1990, the allotment was cancelled. In Petition No. 295/91, the petitioner applied for allotment of land in Malviya Nagar and 25% of the amount of the cost of land Rs. 21,000/-were deposited on January 23, 1989, as required. Vide Anx. 5 dated February 9, 1989, he was informed that since no land was available, at present, in Malviya Nagar, he cannot be allotted land in the said area. The petitioner, on March 20, 1989 (Anx. 7), replied that he may be allotted land in Sanganer Industrial Area. The respondent RIICO vide Anx. 8 dated January 9, 1990, informed the petitioner, regarding offer of allotment of 1000 sq. m. in Industrial Area, Sanganer, on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner, thereafter, deposited the total amount of Rs. 150,000/- as demanded and also filed other documents as required by RIICO. A sketch map (Anx. 9) was given to the Petitioner by RIICO, indicating allotment of plot No. SP-3 to him. The petitioner submitted a plan for construction to RIICO on July 17, 1990, alongwith covering letter (Anx. 10 ). However, suddenly, on December 19, 1990 (Anx. 11), he was informed that it was not possible to allot plot to him for Nursing Home and the amount deposited by him was returned to him alongwith 9% interest by a cheque. In Petition No. 1076/91, vide Anx. 1 dated January 25, 1989, the petitioner and his wife Dr. Veena Singhal deposited Rs. 1,00,000/ -. A plot bearing No. SP -4 was allotted to the petitioner, on the terms and conditions, mentioned in Anx. 3 dated December 23, 1989. Vide Anx. 4 dated January 16,1990, he deposited further amount of Rs. 9,126/- as demanded by the respondents. Vide Anx. 5 dated January 17, 1990, possession of plot No. SP-4 measuring 540 Sq. m at Malviya Industrial Area was handed over to the petitioner. Vide Anx. 7 dated April 30, 1990, the petitioners deposited further amount of Rs. 1090/-, as desired by the respondents. On December 10,1990 (Anx. 8), the respondents cancelled the allotment of the petitioners and returned back the amount by a cheque alongwith 9% interest per annum. In Petition No. 1698/91, petitioners are husband and wife and both are Doctors. They applied for allotment of a plot. As required by the respondents, petitioners deposited amount of Rs. 50,000/- vide Anx. 3. By a letter dated December 19,1989 (Anx. 4), the petitioners were informed to deposit, in all, Rs. 150,000/- towards development charges for the plot measuring 1000 sq. m. , after deducting the amount already deposited, which was done vide Anx. 5 dated May 25, 1989. Thereafter, allotment letter dated December 28, 1989 (Anx. 6) was issued. A further amount of Rs. 1546/-, as demanded, was deposited on February 20, 1990 (Anx. 7 ). The possession of the plot was given on February 20,1990 (Anx. 8 ). The allotment of the petitioners was cancelled by letter dated December 19, 1990 and a cheque returning the amount deposited alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum was sent. The petitioners, by a registered letter dated February 2, 1991 returned back the refund cheque received by them. In Petition No. 1935/91, the respondents vide letter dated December 22, 1988 (Anx. 4) called upon the petitioner to deposit 25% of the total cost of land, which was done vide Anx. 5. The petitioner was informed on January 16, 1989 (Anx. 6) that he will be allotted a plot bearing 800 sq. m. The Nursing Home/hospital should be made functional within two years from the date of allotment of the land. On February 1, 1989, the petitioner was allotted plot No. SP-2 in Industrial Area VKI, Jaipur (Anx. 8 ). A site plan was also issued to the petitioner. Map of the Narsing Home was submitted on January 16, 1990 (Anx. 10 ). Since some persons were making unauthorised encroachments on the allotted plots, the petitioner constructed a boundary wall at the cost of Rs. 90,000/ -. The petitioner received letter dated November 14, 1990 (Anx. 11) from the Regional Manager of RIICO,informing him that the petitioner had constructed wall without taking approval from the Corporation and that the construction should be made after approval of RIICO. It was submitted by the learned counsel that wife of the petitioner Mrs. Kiran Malpani did not join on the post of Medical Officer, even though she was selected by RPSC vide Anx. 13 dated October 30, 1990, in view of the proposed Nursing Home. The petitioner requested on December 19, 1990 (Anx. 14) for early approval of the map. The allotment of the petitioner was cancelled on December 19, 1990 (Anx. 15 ).
(3.) FROM the facts stated above, it can be said that RIICO invited applications, by way of publishing an advertisement from Doctors for allotment of plots in the Industrial Areas of RIICO, at various places, in Rajasthan. All the petitioners in response to the same, applied on various dates for allotment of plots for establishing Nursing Home/hospital. These applications were considered by RIICO. Except in Petition No. 295/91, allotment letters, regarding plots, were issued to each of the petitioners and on depositing the required amount, in full, possession of the same was also handed over to each of the petitioners. The project reports, as required by RIICO, were also filed and site maps were also issued by RIICO. Some of the petitioners submitted their plans for construction of Nursing Home/hospitals as one of the conditions for allotment was to construct the Nursing Home/hospital within a period of two years from the date of allotment. However, no sanction was granted by RIICO. Some of the petitioners constructed compound wall to save the plots from unauthorised encroachments and one of the petitioners constructed two rooms to start the hospital to cater the needs of area. Thus, the offer was made and accepted, the required amount was deposited, allotment letters were issued and possession was handed over. Thereafter, letetter dated December 19, 1990 was issued to each of the petitioners, informing them regarding cancellation of the plots. The amount alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum was sent by way of cheque, which was not accepted by any of the petitioners. The contents of the letter dated December 19, 1990 show that it is not a speaking order and no reason whatsoever has been shown for cancelling the allotted plots. Therefore, it can be said that there was no fault of any of the petitioners, nor there is mention of any breach of conditions on their part, on account of which the allotment may have been cancelled. The letter merely mentions that the plot is cancelled, on account of administrative decision taken by RIICO. It was submitted by the learned counsel for RIICO that, according to RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 (for short, RIICO Rules'), it was mandatory to have got prior approval of Infra-structure Development Committee, before the allotment was made. Reference was made to Schedule of Delegation of Powers of the various Committees in this respect. This prior approval, according to the learned counsel, was not taken. The ID Committee came to the conclusion that it will not be advisable to establish so many hospitals/clinics in the industrial areas. Hence, the allotments were not made legally and were against the Rules. It will be appropriate to look into certain provisions of the Contract Act. In the matter, under consideration, the consent to enter into a contract was given by both the parties, without any coercion/undue advantage etc. Therefore, consent was in accordance with Section 14 of the said Act. It was pointed out on behalf of RIICO that some of the petitioners deposited their amount late. However, since the RIICO accepted the amount, even after the last date fixed for the purpose, issued allotment letters and handed over possession, show that it waived its right to cancel the allotments, on this account. In this situation, as per provision of Section 39 of the Contract Act, respondent signified, by words or conduct, his acquiescence to continue the contract. It is, therefore, evident that when the offer is made and the other party accepts the same, deposits the full amount of the cost of the land, allotment letter is issued and possession of the land is handed over, the contract is complete in all respects. Therefore, the respondents are not legally entitled to now turn back and cancel the contract of the allotment of land. So far as the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 are concerned, according to Rule 8, the possession of the allotted land has to be given to the allottee, after execution of lease agreement, but in exceptional cases, the Managing Director, if deems fit , can give possession of the land, even earlier than that for reasons to be recorded in writing. Rule 12 is regarding terms and conditions of the lease and the procedure regarding payment of the amount. It is provided under rule 13 that Managing Director may revise the schedule of re-payment of outstanding instalments in genuine cases for reasons to be recorded in writing. Rule 22 deals with the allotment of land. It lays down that if the area is upto two acres, except for the areas located at Jaipur, the same should be allotted by District Allotment Committee. If the area of the land is upto five acres, it shall be allotted by Head of IPI Division. It further provides that Managing Director shall have full powers in all areas, regarding allotment of land. Thus, it may be pointed out that in the matters, under Consideration, the allotment has been made under orders of the Managing Director, who has evidently full powers to do the same. Rule 24 provides regarding cancellation of the allotments. It is provided in sub-rule (i) "that if on the issue of show cause notice, representation is not made by the party within thirty days, the Resident Engineers/director (Infrastructure) would be competent to cancel the allotment. " Sub-rule (ii) provides that where a party makes representation in reply to the show cause notice, the powers of cancellation shall be exercised by the following Officers/bodies : (a) District Industries Centre-in respect of plots upto 2 acres. (b) Head of IPI Division-upto 5 acres. (c) Managing Director-Full powers. Therefore, from rule 24 also, it is evident that the Managing Director has full powers regarding allotment of any land and has also full powers to cancel the same in accordance with the procedure mentioned therein. Sub-rule (bb) provides regarding the appeal, on account of cancellation of the plots, within one month. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the matter regarding cancellation of the plots allotted to the petitioners was considered in detail, in the meeting of ID Committee, held on November 30, 1990. A copy of the minutes of Resolution (Item No. 8) of this meeting has been produced, which shows that the Committee was of the view, after considering all relevant factors, that it would not be advisable to establish so many hospitals/clinics etc. in the Industrial Areas of the Corporation. It was also pointed out that prior approval of the Committee was not obtained and that the applicants have not fulfilled the terms and conditions laid down in the letters of allotment. Therefore, it was decided to cancell all the allotments and refund the amounts alongwith simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Number of documents, including the resolution mentioned above, marked Anx. Rl/w, have been produced. From the RIICO Rules, discussed above, it can be said that there is no such rule, which may require prior approval of the ID Committee, before any allotment is made. In this case, not only amount, in lieu of the allotted plots. was accepted, but allotment letters were issued to all the petitioners, except one on Petition No. 295/91 and possession of the land was also handed over. ;