Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 10060
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Arun Palli, Vikram Aggarwal, JJ
M/S CHAMPION GYM FITNESS EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS – Respondent
CWP No 15562 of 2007
Present:Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana with
Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3 and 6.
Judicial review of administrative decisions is limited; courts do not substitute their opinion unless the decision-making process is found to be illegal or arbitrary.
Headnote:(A) Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Act - Allotment of industrial plots - The petitioner sought allotment of plots No.1666-1667, alleging unfair allotment to respondents No.4 and 5 - The allotment committee found the petitioner ineligible based on turnover and operational capacity - Judicial review of policy matters is limited, and courts do not substitute their opinion unless the decision-making process is found to be illegal or arbitrary. (Paras 1, 8, 22, 24)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that it would not interfere in the allotment committee's decision unless mala fides or illegality are demonstrated - The committee's reasoning was deemed reasonable and non-discriminatory. (Paras 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of gym equipment, sought allotment of plots after previous allotments were made. The allotment committee favored respondents No.4 and 5 based on their higher turnover and experience. (Paras 1-5)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the allotment committee's decision, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims of unfair treatment. (Paras 23-25)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the allotment process and the merits of the petitioner's claims against the committee's decision. (Paras 17, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allotment committee's decision was based on valid criteria and that the petitioner had no vested right to the plots. (Paras 22, 24)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
1. The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamusdirecting respondents No.l to 3 and 6 (Haryana State IndustrialDevelopment Corporation) (for short the “HSIIDC”) to allot Plots No.1666-1667, situated in Industrial Area, Rai, District Sonepat to the petitionercompany and to cancel the allotment of these plots made in favour ofrespondents No.4 and 5. A direction is also sought to HSIIDC to framesome criteria for allotment of plots.
2. The petitioner claims to be a manufacturer of latest gymequipments having very good reputation in the field. Its managing director isstated to be an experienced person having good educational background.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that initially Plots No.531-532, measuring 312.50 sq. mtr. each were allotted to the petitioner in IndustrialArea, Rai for a project for manufacturing gym equipments. However, onaccount of creation of a new food park, the said plots were changed to PlotsNo.248-249 having the same size. Subsequently, the petitioner sought somemore plots upon which Plots No.1680-1681, measuring 1012.50 sq. mtr.each were allotted. As per the petitioner, immediately the plant wasestablished and the entire outstanding dues were paid and production alsocommenced.
4. In 2006, for the petitioner company had expanded and hadprogressed, it requested for allotment of two more plots i.e. Plots No. 1666and 1667 vide application dated 01.03.2006 (Annexure P-1).
5. Subsequent to this, advertisement dated 16.07.2006 (AnnexureP-2) was issued by the HSIIDC for allotment of industrial plots and shedswhich included 85 plots measuring 1012.6 sq. mtr. Pursuant to the saidadvertisement, the petitioner applied for Plots No.1666-1667 along with alldocuments viz. the project report, experience documents etc. Initially, theinterview/interaction was fixed for 4" and 6" June 2007 but since thepetitioner could not appear on account of the communication having beensent at the wrong address, the interview was fixed for 06.07.2007.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that officials of the HSIIDC wereannoyed with the petitioner, as a result of which they did not respond to anumber of communications sent by the petitioner which have also beenplaced on record as Annexures P-5 and P-7 to P-9 respectively.
7. It is also the case of the petitioner that on the day of the interview/interaction, more than 300 persons had been called and the same was just a formality as no one was asked anything by the allotmentcommittee. It was ultimately found that the plots had been allotted torespondents No.4 and 5, who, according to the petitioner, were not eligiblefor the same. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was muchmore meritorious than respondents No.4 and 5 and that a pick and choosepolicy had been adopted by the HSIIDC. It was specifically alleged thatrespondents No.4 and 5 had formed their firms on 30.08.2006 only for thepurpose of applying for the plots and that these firms were not in existencebefore 30.08.2006. The achievements of the petitioner company have alsobeen highlighted in the writ petition and various photographs and cataloguehave been annexed as Annexures P-11 and P-12.
8. Respondents No.2, 3 and 6 filed a joint written statement,whereas respondent No.4 filed a separate written statement which wasadopted by respondent No.5. The case of the official respondents is that thepetitioner had not complied with the terms and conditions of allotment ofPlots No.1680-1681 which had been allotted to it on 31.03.2003. As againstprojected turnover of Rs.2.20 crore which was the figure given at the time ofseeking allotment of Plots No.1680-1681, the petitioner achieved a turnoverof Rs.82.46 lakhs only. It had also not completed the maximum permissiblefloor area ratio (for short the “FAR”) which was 125%, whereas thepetitioner had raised construction only to the extent of 60% of thepermissible FAR.
9. As regards allotment of Plots No.1666-1667, which fall on theback of the Plots No.16
