Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.
M/s. Mangalam Arts – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8082 of 2018
Decided On : 20-04-2022
ARBITRARY CANCELLATION - Industrial Plot Allotment - RIICO Rules 1979, Rule 5, Rule 27 - The court discussed the arbitrariness of the cancellation of the allotment process based on 'first come first serve' method. It referred to various judgments and highlighted the legal principles related to the disposal of public properties, legitimate expectations, and the authority's discretion in allotment decisions. The court found that the cancellation was not arbitrary and upheld the decision of the respondent-Corporation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-firm applied for the allotment of industrial plots on 'first come first serve' basis. The respondent-Corporation cancelled the allotment process, leading to the petitioner's challenge in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the allotment process was not arbitrary and upheld the decision of the respondent-Corporation. It emphasized the legal principles related to the disposal of public properties, legitimate expectations, and the authority's discretion in allotment decisions.
Issues: Arbitrariness of the cancellation of the allotment process, adherence to 'first come first serve' method, and the authority's discretion in allotment decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal principles related to the disposal of public properties, legitimate expectations, and the authority's discretion in allotment decisions. It found that the cancellation was not arbitrary and upheld the decision of the respondent-Corporation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim order passed by the court was vacated. No costs were awarded.
ORDER
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-firm seeking following prayer:-
'(i) Call for the entire record pertaining to passing of the impugned communication dated 07.07.2017 and after examining the same be declared the impugned communication dated 07.07.2017 be null and void and be quashed and set aside.
(ii) By further appropriate writ, order or direction, the official respondents be directed to immediately accept the entire amount including the balance amount and thereupon issue letter of allotment in favour of the petitioner forthwith.
(iii) By further appropriate writ, order or direction, the official respondents be restrained from putting the Plot No.A/128 & A/129 to auction as well as to take any coercive steps to allot the plot No.A/128 & A/129 in favour of anyone else during the pendency of the writ petition or thereafter.
(iv) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, if any order prejudicial/detrimental to the interest of petitioner is passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the same may kindly be taken on record and be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court.'
2. The brief facts, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is a partnership firm, engaged in the activity of manufacturing and exporting handicrafts, wooden furniture and other items, having its manufacturing units at different locations such as Jaipur, Udaipur, Mirzapur (UP), Agra (UP) & Delhi, etc.
3. The petitioner-firm in order to establish its new industrial unit in the new Industrial Area namely Prahaladpura situated at proposed Ring Road on the Southern side of Jaipur City applied for allotment of plot in pursuance of the public notice dated 13.12.2015 issued by the respondent-Corporation for different sizes. The petitioner-firm had applied for one plot of size of 10,000 Sq.Mtrs. against plot No.A/127 to A/130, as described in the writ petition.
4. The petitioner-firm was found successful in the procedure of draw of lottery for allotment of plot No.A/127 and as such the petitioner-firm was allotted the said plot vide allotment letter dated 18.02.2016 and accordingly, the petitioner-firm deposited the required amount and lease agreement was also executed in favour of the petitioner-firm.
5. The petitioner-firm has pleaded that since it was planning to launch new industrial unit in the new Industrial Area, the petitioner-firm is said to have contacted the respondent- Corporation for allotment of adjacent industrial plots on 'first come first serve' basis, as per the policy of the respondent- Corporation.
6. The petitioner-firm has pleaded that a notice dated 20.05.2017 was issued in the Rajasthan Patrika (Hindi) dated 21.05.2017 and Hindustan Times (English) dated 21.05.2017 whereby three plots of 10,000 Sq.Mtrs. were offered for sale at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per Sq.Mtrs. on 'first come first serve' basis and the application was to be submitted online and in case of offline option, the UTR number of payment through RTGS/NEFT was to be submitted within 48 hours.
7. The petitioner-firm has pleaded that it applied for allotment of plots bearing No.A/128 & A/129 on 'first come first serve' basis along with requisite documents and made the payment in bank account of the respondent-Corporation vide UTR number, as mentioned in the communication dated 22.05.2017 sent to the respondent-Corporation.
8. The petitioner-firm has pleaded that as per the priority maintained by the respondent-Corporation only two applicants namely Shri Krishna Sudershan Urja Private Limited and the petitioner-firm applied for industrial plot No.A/129 and the petitioner-firm had applied first with project cost of Rs.2146 Lakhs and similarly for the industrial plot No.A/128 only two persons had applied for allotment including the petitioner-firm and the application of the petitioner-firm was first as it was given application No.127 and the second applicant was having application No.128.
9. The petitioner-firm has pleaded that for all purposes
The court emphasized the legal principles related to the disposal of public properties, legitimate expectations, and the authority's discretion in allotment decisions.
Writ petitions can be maintained against administrative actions affecting contracts, especially when principles of natural justice and public policy are at stake.
The main legal point established is that a public authority's actions in contractual matters, especially those involving public property, should not be arbitrary and must adhere to recognized norms a....
Public authorities cannot cite internal policy limitations to deny alternative plots when the initial failure to deliver possession arises from their own lack of due diligence, as such conduct consti....
The duty of public authorities to act in a fair, objective, non-arbitrary, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner in their dealings, and the importance of procedural fairness and principles of na....
The court emphasized that failure to comply with payment directives, as mandated by public notice, results in cancellation of allotment, and timely action to enforce rights is critically important.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
