JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for the quashing/setting aside the order dated 08.09.2017 (Annexure P-21) passed by respondent No.5-EO; minutes of meeting dated 14.01.2019 (Annexure P-23), besides the allotment letter dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure P-25) issued to the petitioner to the extent that the allotment price of the plot is being charged at the current price instead of the price mentioned in the Letter of Intent dated 22.03.2000 (Annexure P-2), as also the consequential cancellation order dated 06.07.2019 (Annexure P-30) passed by respondent No.5-EO. The petitioner has further, prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue allotment of the plot to the petitioner on the price, mentioned in the Letter of Intent dated 22.03.2000 (Annexure P-2).

Factual Background

2. In June 1999, the respondent-State of Haryana issued an advertisement inviting application for allotment of various hospital sites located at Gurugram (then Gurgaon), Faridabad and Panchkula. The site at Gurugram measured 10 acres and the tentative allotment price of the plot was mentioned as Rs.10,03,81,600/-. It was also mentioned therein that the preference will be given to Cardiology and Cardio-thoracic.

3. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied and deposited the required earnest money of Rs.1,00,38,160/-and after having been found eligible and deserving by the respondent-authority, the petitioner was issued Letter of Intent dated 22.03.2000 (Annexure P-2). As per the terms thereof, the petitioner was required to deposit another sum of Rs.1,50,57,240/- within a period of 30 days. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the said amount on 20.04.2000. The respondent-authority was required to provide the zoning plan of the site to the petitioner on the basis of which the building plan was to be submitted by the petitioner but, the respondent-authority failed to provide the zoning plan for more than 2 years despite the petitioner having made various representations and requests and it was only vide letter dated 25.09.2002 (Annexure P-6) that the petitioner was informed that the zoning plan has been approved vide letter dated 03.07.2002 by respondent No.3-Chief Administrator and that the petitioner should get the building plans sanctioned within a period of 15 days. It was absolutely impossible for the petitioner to get the building plans sanctioned within such a short time period simply because, hence for getting the plans prepared for a project spread across an area of 10 acres, thus at least 15-20 days, rather would become consumed.

4. To cover up its own faults, respondent No.5-Estate Officer withdrew the LOI vide order dated 13.08.2003 whereagainst the petitioner preferred an appeal, which however was dismissed. Moreover, the revision petition filed thereagainst by the petitioner was allowed vide letter dated 18.06.2004. Resultantly, the petitioner was given a time period of three months to comply with the other terms and conditions of the LOI. In sequel, the petitioner submitted the building plans and also requested for the issuance of a regular letter of allotment and for handing over the possession of the plot, so that, the project could be proceeded with. The petitioner also submitted letters from Lord Krishna Bank and Bank of India respectively offering credit facility of Rs.25 Crore and Rs.20 Crore, in case the regular letter of allotment is issued in favour of the petitioner.

5. Despite that petitioner was directed to appear before respondent No.5-EO on 23.11.2004, on the ground, that the respondent-HUDA is not satisfied with proof of finance submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner remained present in the office respondent No.5-EO, on 23.11.2004, and for the entire day officer did not turn up. Resultantly, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 23.11.2004 (Annexure P-14), stating that the next date be intimated to him through registered post. The said letter w