Judgment

JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:- These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment dated April 25, 1980 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ No. 3512 of 1979 : (Reported in AIR 1981 Punj & Har 30).

2. The revised policy of allotment of industrial sites for the establishment of printing presses in Chandigarh has been called into question in the aforesaid writ petition. The printing presses are now scattered all over Chandigarh. They are situated either in residential premises or in small shops in different localities. The Chandigarh administration wanted them to be located in an industrial area. For that purpose, they earmarked forty-three sites in the industrial area phase-II. The sites are comparatively of bigger dimensions. In 1975, the authorities invited applications for allotment of those sites. Several persons submitted applications. The appellants in Appeal No. 97 of 1981 were some of them. They applied with deposit of earnest money of Rs. 1000/- each. That would be ten per cent of the premium payable for the site. All the applications were processed for final allotment. In the meantime, it is said that the appellants were called upon to deposit 25 per cent of the premium calculated at the rate of Rs. 15/-per square yard. The appellants appear to have complied with that demand also. Since there were more applicants than the sites available, the authorities decided to draw the lots. In October, 1977, the lots were drawn and the lady luck smiled at the appellants. But the authorities did not issue letters of allotment. The reason was obvious. The authorities had a second look at the scheme of allotment of sites for printing industries. The authorities wanted to accommodate as many applicants as possible. But they could not accommodate all those applicants for want of adequate number of sites in the industrial area phase II. The authorities were also of the view that for setting up the printing industry, larger sites such as those earmarked, earlier, would not be necessary and smaller sites would meet the requirements. Consequently, the sites proposed in the industrial area phase II were given up and a layout of smaller sites in the industrial area phase I was formed. There about 131 of sites were reserved for allotment to printing press owners.

3. The appellants and other like applicants were intimated by letters that the said sites would be allotted at the rate of Rs. 35/- per square yard. They were also informed that the allotment would be made by draw of lots on October 3, 1979. The appellants however, did not participate in the proceedings. They moved the High Court with a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the revised policy for allotment of smaller sites. It was contended inter alia that they had a right to take possession of bigger plots in respect of which the lots were earlier drawn in their favour. The High Court issued rule nisi in the petition, but allowed the authorities to draw the lots as proposed. The High Court also permitted the appellants to deposit the premium demanded without prejudice to their rights in the writ petition.

4. That is all at the preliminary hearing of the writ petition. In the final hearing the High Court did not give substantial relief to the appellants. The High Court was of the view that there was nothing illegal in the revised policy adopted by the Chandigarh administration since the appellants did not acquire right to get bigger sites in the industrial area phase II. The High Court however, felt that the appellants would be liable to pay only at the rate of Rs. 15/- per square yard and not Rs. 35/- per square yard. Accordingly a direction was issued to the authorities.

5. It is against this judgment that the present appeals have been preferred. Civil Appeal No. 97/81 is by the printing press owners. Civil Appeal No. 98/81 is by the Chandigarh administration. The Chandigarh administration is aggrieved by the direction issued by the Hi