JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The appellants/plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.10.1999 of the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, which reversed the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 20.03.1998 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Chandigarh, respectfully invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal (for short “RSA”). The appellant seek restoration of the decree rightly granted by the learned Trial Court and appropriate redress for the substantial miscarriage of justice occasioned thereby. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are vitiated by manifest perversity, serious errors of law, and a fundamentally flawed appreciation of the evidentiary record, resulting in grave injustice. The appellant therefore pray that this Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree and reinstate the lawful and well-reasoned decree of the learned Trial Court.

1.1. Suit for a declaratory decree that the communication bearing No. HSIDC/DEO/92/433 dated 18.12.1992, whereby the defendants purported to withdraw the letter of intent pertaining to Industrial Shed No. 81, Type ‘A’, situated in Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Industrial Area, Gurgaon, is void, ultra vires, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of the governing allotment rules, contrary to the contractual stipulations and advertisement conditions, and in derogation of the Constitution of India as well as the foundational principles of natural justice, equity, and fair play; and consequently, for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to forthwith allot the aforesaid Industrial Shed No. 81, Type ‘A’, or in the alternative, to allot any other Industrial Shed of Type ‘A’ having identical specifications within the said Industrial Area, Gurgaon, in accordance with law, under Order XII Rule 1 CPC.

2. The sequence of events antecedent to, and culminating in, the present appeal may be succinctly set out as under -

“The genesis of the present lis emanates from the arbitrary deprivation of the plaintiff’s legitimate entitlement to an industrial allotment, despite his demonstrable compliance with all stipulated conditions and his bona fide pursuit of entrepreneurial advancement.

The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary detail, are that the plaintiff is an emerging entrepreneur striving to generate employment and contribute to the national economy. He has established a small-scale industrial unit for laser printing at Delhi, with a proposed integration of an offset- printing facility at Gurgaon. On 14.12.1991, an advertisement was published in The Hindustan Times whereby Defendant No.1 invited applications from the general public, including women entrepreneurs, for allotment of built-up industrial sheds of various sizes in Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Industrial Area, Gurgaon, Haryana. The advertisement contemplated preferential consideration for ex-servicemen, SC/ST candidates, and women entrepreneurs, and provided special reservation for NRIs, projects with foreign equity participation, and 100% EOUs. It further prescribed the payment structure as 10% of the price along with the application, 15% within 35 days of allotment, and the remaining 75% at the stage of possession. Significantly, neither the advertisement nor the governing allotment rules conferred any authority upon the defendants to unilaterally alter these terms or to prescribe a procedure for cancellation of an allotted industrial shed.

In faithful adherence to the advertisement and its payment terms, the plaintiff applied to Defendant No.1 vide Application No.1292 dated 25.01.1992, accompanied by a demand draft of Rs.20,400/- drawn on Punjab State Co-operative Bank, Chandigarh. Finding the plaintiff to be a suitable candidate, the defendants issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 27.10.1992 offering Industrial Shed No. 81, Type ‘A’, in Udyog Vihar Phase-V. However, even prior to issuing the formal allotment letter, the defen