Judgment:
C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH ***** Date of Decision: 30.09.2013 C.W.P.No.18360 of 2006 Bal Krishan Goel ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents WITH C.W.P.No.12001 of 1993 B.S.Rawat ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S.
CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr.V.B.Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.18360 of 2006.
Mr.Indresh Goel, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1.
Mr.Ajay Nara, Advocate (in CWP No.12001 of 1993) and Mr.R.S.Madan, Advocate, (in CWP No.18360 of 2006) for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
MAHAVIR S.
CHAUHAN, J.
This judgment, being passed in CWP No.18360 of 2006, 'Bal Krishan Goel versus State of Haryana and others', shall, besides this writ petition, dispose of, CWP No.12001 of 1993, 'B.S.Rawat versus The State of Haryana and others', also, as both these petitions involve common questions of law and fact.
For convenience, facts have been taken from CWP No.18360 of Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -2- 2006.
In response to application dated 19.05.1995 submitted by the petitioner for allotment of one 14 Marlas residential plot in Kurukshetra out of discretionary quota, the Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula, vide memorandum dated 21.06.1995 asked the petitioner to submit an affidavit to the effect that he did not own a residential plot/house in the Urban Estate of Kurukshetra either in his own name or in the name of his spouse or any dependant family member, which he submitted on 29.06.1995.
Thereafter, nothing was heard from the respondents.
Petitioner served a legal notice dated 01.03.2002 (Annexure P-1) upon respondent No.3 for delivery of physical possession of the plot No.633, Sector-5, Kurukshetra, saying that it was allotted to him in the year 1994-95.
The notice having failed to evoke a response, petitioner filed C.W.P.No.7589 of 2002, which came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 15.05.2002 (Annexure P2) with a direction to the respondents that representation made by the petitioner be decided within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, respondent No.3, vide order dated 01.10.2002 (Annexure P-3).rejected the representation/legal notice of the petitioner stating that vide letter dated 10.07.1995, petitioner was called upon to deposit an amount of Rs.33,525/- in the shape of a demand draft within 30 days of the date of issuance of that letter and it was clearly stipulated that in the event of failure to deposit this amount within the stipulated time, the offer would stand withdrawn.
But the petitioner did not deposit the said amount and, Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -3- as such, was not entitled to allotment of the residential plot as claimed by him.
To challenge order dated 01.10.2002 (Annexure P-3) petitioner preferred an appeal.
The appellate authority, vide order dated 05.07.2005 (Annexure P-4) accepted the appeal and remanded the matter to respondent No.3 with a direction to give hearing to the appellant and decide whether the letter dated 10.07.1995 was received or not by the appellant or was issued or not by the concerned branch as per Section 42(1) of HUDA Act, 1977, and to pass a fresh order, as deemed fit.
In compliance of the order dated 05.07.2005 (Annexure P-4).respondent No.3 heard the petitioner and passed order dated 21.10.2005 ((Annexure P-5) to the following effect:- “......While going through the record it was found that a letter dated 10.07.1995 was dispatched to the appellant named Sh.
Bal Kishan Goel, Advocate through U.P.C.bearing Despatch No.15073-75.
The said letter is shown against Sr.No.1 along with similarly situated 8 numbers other letteRs.A photostat copy of the said U.P.C.receipt duly stamped by the postal authority, Panchkula dated 11.7.1995 is enclosed at Annexure 'C'.
It is significant to add here that letter of intent initially dispatched on 21.6.1995 vide No.13038 issued by the Secretary, HUDA, Panchkula Branch was received by the appellant and in response to that he had submitted an affidavit in the said branch.
The offer of allotment letter dated 10.7.1995 was also addressed to the appellant on his previous given address on which the initial letter dated 21.6.1995 was issued and received by him.
In so far as issuing the letter dated 10.7.1995 under Section 42(i) of HUDA Act, 1977 is concerned, it is submitted that the procedure provided Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -4- under the same clause was not followed in the instant case as per the scrutiny of the record of the Discretionary Quota Branch of the Headquarter as reported in the aforesaid paras.
It is made clear that keeping in view the statement on oath by the appellant and non-availability of any evidence regarding the receipt of letter dated 10.7.1995 in the record of Headquarter by the appellant, I hereby give my finding that said letter has not been received by the appellant.”
.
Petitioner then initiated contempt proceedings against the respondents and during those proceedings, respondent No.3 passed a fresh order dated 16.06.2006 (Annexure P-7).to the following effect:- “It is worth adding over here that the letter dated 10.7.1995 of demand notice being not a statutory one was sent to the appellant under Postal Certificate alongwith 7 other similarly situated applicants who did not never pointe4d out at any point of time for non-receipt of their letters of demand notice.
It is also significant to add over here that the appellant was dealt under the same procedure as also dealt others and as such no discrimination was done to the appellant in issuing the letter of demand notice.
By going through the facts and circumstances as stated in the aforesaid paras the undersigned does not differ with the Speaking Orders dated 1.10.2002 passed by my predecessor vide No.13333-34 dated 16.10.2002 wherein the applicant has not been found eligible for allotment of Discretionary Quota plot having been failed to deposit 25% cost of the plot within 30 days as per policy guidelines framed under HUDA Act, 1977.”
.
Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -5- However, neither the letter of allotment was issued in favour of the petitioner nor possession of the plot was given to him and faced with the situation, the petitioner filed the instant civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 16.06.2006 (Annexure P7).reviewing order dated 21.10.2005 (Annexure P-5).and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore and allot either Plot No.633, Sector-5, Kurukshetra, or an alternative plot to him at Kurukshetra.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the only contesting respondents, have filed written statement stating therein that responding to petitioner's request, the then Chief Minister, Haryana, had ordered allotment of plot No.633, Sector-5, Kurukshetra, if available, to the petitioner, out of the Chief Minister's discretionary quota and accordingly, vide letter dated 21.06.1995, petitioner was requested to submit the requisite affidavit, which he submitted on 29.06.1995 but he failed to deposit 25% of the total cost of the plot as required vide letter dated 10.07.1995, which was sent to the petitioner vide Under Postal Certificate and that being so, petitioner is not entitled to allotment of a residential plot.
It has also been stated that no concluded contract had come into existence and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as claimed by him in the instant civil writ petition.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that in the order dated Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -6- 21.10.2005 (Annexure P-5).it was admitted by the 3rd respondent that letter dated 10.07.1995 was not received by the petitioner and the somersault adverted to by the said respondent by passing order dated 16.06.2006 (Annexure P-7) saying that the aforesaid letter was sent to the petitioner, cannot be taken cognizance of as this order has been passed by reviewing the earlier order dated 21.10.2005 (Annexure P-5).which is not permissible in view of settled principle as laid down in Section 42 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, the order dated 10.07.1995 could be sent to the petitioner only under registered post and not otherwise.
This, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, means that the letter dated 10.07.1995 was never received by the petitioner and that being so, he cannot be deprived of the allotment of the residential plot on account of non-deposit of 25% of the price of the plot.
To support this contention, learned senior counsel relies upon judgment passed by this Court in Bhupinder Chaudhary versus State of Haryana, 2001(3) RCR (Civil).626.
Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner has also argued that the respondents are obliged to allot to the petitioner a fourteen-marla plot in view of memorandum dated 21.06.1995, by treating it as letter of allotment in terms of order dated 26.11.1991 passed by this Court in CWP No.12849 of 1990, 'Jitender Nath Joshi and another versus Haryana Urban Development Authority'.
On the contrary on behalf of the respondents it is argued that though letter dated 10.07.1995 was sent to the petitioner under postal Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -7- certificate and must have been received by him, yet, if be it otherwise, even then the petitioner has no case as no concluded contract had come into existence between the petitioner and the respondents which could be got enforced by the petitioner by approaching this Court by way of the instant civil writ petition.
Nothing more has been urged on either side.
Powers of the Government to allot plots under discretionary quota came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in case Anil Sabharwal versus State of Haryana and otheRs.1997 HRR165 wherein it was observed as under :- “39.
After having given our most anxious thought to the Judgment of the Division Bench in S.R.Dass's case, we agree with it that the Government has the power to give directions to the HUDA for carrying out the provisions of the Act.
We also agree with it that the Government can make reservation of plots while making development of the urban estate but we are unable to subscribe to the view of the Division Bench that the powers vesting in the Government under Section 15 read with Section 30 of the Act are unlimited.
In our opinion, the Division Bench has erred in recording that conclusion.
Apparently it did not give due regard to the opening words of Section 15 (1) and the last part of Section 30 (1) of the Act.
A perusal of these provisions makes it clear that the Government can give directions to the HUDA only for the efficient administration of the Act and the Government's powers to give directions to the HUDA are not unfettered.
We cannot accept the proposition that the Government can give directions Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -8- inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.
Rather, such directions must not only be consistent with the provisions of the Act but the same must conform to the constitutional limitations.
We, therefore, disapprove the view taken by the Division Bench that the powers vested in the State Government under the Act are unlimited.
40.
We also do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 that under Section 15 (1) or Section 30 (1) of the Act, the Chief Minister is vested with an absolute discretion to allot a particular percentage of plots according to his choice.
The policy of reserving the plots in favour of a class or a group of persons may in a given case be justified with preference to the purposes of the Act.
Allotment of plot to one individual under the directions of the Government may also be justified in a given case but the plea that absolute discretion can vest in one individual is wholly in- compatible with the scheme of the Act and the Constitution.
Likewise, the argument that the discretion conferred upon the Chief Minister is immune from the judicial review has to be negatived because it is an antithesis to the principle of “rule of law”.
which forms the core of the Indian Constitution.
This argument is also unacceptable because in our country the representatives of the people act as trustees of faith reposed in them by the public at the time of elections.”
.
Ultimately, while discouraging allotments under the discretionary quota at random to the public at large at the whim or caprice of the State, the Full Bench formulated following guidelines :- “76.
On the basis of the above discussion, we hold :- Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -9- (1) That the provisions of Section 15 and Section 30 of the Act do not confer unbridled and unguided powers upon the Chief Minister to allot residential plots according to his discretion and the same cannot be used for sustaining the conferment of such powers upon the Chief Minister; (2) That the criteria devised by the Chief Minister vide note dated 21.11.1990 for allotment of plots i.e.“distinguished and needy people”.
is vague and arbitrary and is, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; (3) That the allotment of residential plots made under the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister on or after 31.10.1989 are declared illegal and are quashed.
This shall be subject to the following :- (i) The allotment made under the discretionary quota shall remain unaffected in cases of those allottees and their bona fide purchasers who have already raised construction of the houses and buildings as per the plans sanctioned by the HUDA before the date of the publication of the notice of this petition i.e.6.6.1996.
However, the HUDA shall issue general instructions restraining the alienation of the constructed houses/buildings to third parties by such allottees/ transferees for a period of next five yeaRs.(ii) The persons to whom plots measuring 2 to 6 Marlas have been allotted shall be allowed to retain the plots only if their family does not own a house in the State of Haryana/ Chandigarh.
The condition against alienation to the third party shall also apply in their cases.
(iii) The cases of the allottees who were/ are members of the armed forces/ para military forces who have made Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -10- sacrifice for the cause of nation or who have distinguished themselves during the couRs.of service as well as themselves of the police forces who fought against terrorism in the State of Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere in the country and the civilians who have been affected by the terrorists' activities in the States of Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere in the country shall be reviewed by a committee.
(iv) The persons falling in the category of defence personnel/ police officeRs.officials as well as the civilians whose cases are to be reviewed by the Committee to be constituted by the Government shall be allowed to retain only one plot per family on the recommendation of the Committee.
However, they shall not be entitled to alienate the plots to third parties for five yeaRs.(v) Within one month from today the Government of Haryana should appoint a Committee headed by a retired Judge of the High Court preferably from the State other than the State of Punjab, Haryana and Delhi to examine the cases of allotment made to the members of the armed forces/para/military forces who made sacrifice for the cause of the nation or who have rendered distinguished service.
The cases of the police officeRs.officials who have fought against terrorism and the civilians who have suffered due to terrorism shall also be examined by that Committee.
The Government and the HUDA shall regularise those allotments for which recommendations are made by the Committee.
Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -11- (vi) If the Committee/HUDA finds that any of the allottees has submitted false information to the HUDA , then allotment in favour of such person shall necessarily be cancelled and the Government shall take appropriate action for prosecution of such applicants.
(4) The Government of Haryana may frame policy for allotment of plots to specified class of persons and notify such policy.
Allotment under such policy should be made by inviting applications through public notice from all those who belong to a particular class.
(5) The Government/the HUDA shall immediately cause publication of the notice in the two newspapers having wide circulation in the States of Punjab and Haryana and two newspapers having circulation in the entire country indicating therein that due to quashing of the allotment made under the discretionary quota the allottees have become entitled to the refund of money deposited by them.
The amount shall be refunded to the allottee within two months of the making of application by such person.
If the HUDA fails to return the amount within two months of the making of the application then it shall pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum.
(6) The cases of those covered by the exception clauses mentioned above shall be referred to the Committee along with the entire record and the final decision be taken on the recommendation of the Committee.
(7) The plots which shall become available due to the quashing of the allotments made by the HUDA shall be disposed of by it as per the existing policy.
(8) The Government shall ensure full compliance of these directions by its own officers and the officials of the Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -12- HUDA.”
.
Thereafter, some of the allottees, who were allotted plots prior to 1996, went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in case HaRs.Dhingra versus State of Haryana and others (2001) 9 SCC550issued the following guidelines :- “8.
These appeals, therefore, stand allowed to the extent indicated above and declaring that the judgment of the High Court in Anil Sabharwal v.
State of Haryana (1997) 2 Punj LR7shall be effective from 23.4.1996.
In the event in any of the cases any allotment has been cancelled, the same shall be brought in conformity with the order made by us whether those allottees are parties in these proceedings or not.
The declaration made by us will have a general application.
It is also made clear that allotment orders made prior to 23.4.1996 can be cancelled if they are not made in conformity with the decision in S.R.Dass v.
State of Haryana 1988 PLJ123: (1988) 1 Punj LR430after following due procedure.”
.
The crux of the aforesaid judgments is that the allotments made prior to 23.4.1996 could be cancelled only if these are not made in conformity with the decision in case S.R.Dass versus State of Haryana and others (supra).The Division Bench of this Court in S.R.Dass's case (supra) had made the following observations:- “75.
However, the cases falling in categories (a) and (d) have to be dealt with differently.
The cases of the allottees who fall in category (a) require to be decided taking into consideration the following principles :- Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -13- (i) If the allottee himself or his spouse or any of the dependent children has any house or plot either at Delhi, Chandigarh or in any 'A' Class Municipal town in the States of Punjab and Haryana or in Urban Estates established by HUDA, or under the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964, or in the scheme area under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 ; or in any other colony established by a Coloniser in the Punjab and Haryana and approved/regularised by the State Government concerned, he shall not be allowed to retain the plot ; (ii) In case an allottee got allotted in his favour more than one plot either in his own name, or in the name of his spouse, or dependent children, the allottee shall not be allowed to retain all the plots.
He can be allowed to retain only one plot.
Provided in both the above said cases if all the plots have been constructed the allotment of the plots in view of the principle of Promissory Estoppel should not be cancelled.
But if one plot has been constructed and the others have not been constructed, the allotment of the remaining un-constructed plots can be cancelled.
Provided further that in a case covered by (ii) above, if a plot has been sold by an allottee, allotment of the remaining un- constructed plots can be cancelled.”
.
A similar controveRs.came up for consideration of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.18682 of 1991, “Ram Kumar Aggarwal versus State of Haryana and others”.
decided on 01.06.2011.
A Single Bench of this Court found that the petitioner therein could not establish that he did file an affidavit as required by the respondents and accordingly dismissed the writ petition Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -14- saying: “The charity, which once Government wanted to extend to the petitioner, has been withheld then the petitioner cannot compel the respondents to extend that charity”.Letters Patent Appeal No.2044 of 2011, brought against the order dated 01.06.2011 of the learned Single Judge, came to be dismissed by a Division Bench vide judgment dated 09.11.2011 in the following terMs.“3.
Having heard the learned counsel and perusing the paper book with his able assistance we are of the view that the State largess cannot be distributed by pick and choose method.
For allotment of plot carved out of the government land, it was imperative for the respondent to follow the principles of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
On our repeated queries, Mr.Gurpreet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant petitioner has not been able to state that any advertisement was issued inviting applications.
If the transparency in the procedure for allotment of plots has not been maintained then there is no possibility for issuing any direction for allotment of plot to the appellant- petitioner.
The principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 would be shattered if any one is permitted to take away the benefit of the State largess in a clandestine manner.
There is no merit in the appeal and the same does not warrant admission.
Accordingly we uphold the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
The appeal stands dismissed”.Another matter that came up before this Court in C.W.P.No.3301 of 1992 titled as 'Dr.
Anoop Singh versus State of Haryana and otheRs.a Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -15- Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ petition, vide order dated 31.08.1992, in the following terms:- “We have heard counsel for the parties.
It is not disputed that an offer was made to the petitioner but before the final letter of allotment could be issued by the Estate Officer, the State Government had reversed its decision to allot plots out of its discretionary quota.
The communication dated 5.4.1991 was only an offer made to the petitioner and no doubt, the Estate Officer, had been requested to allot plot no.988 to the petitioner but he did not do so since the plot had already been allotted to some other person.
No concluded contract can be said to have come into being between the petitioner and the respondents herein and nor was there any subsisting offer as the same had been withdrawn by the State Government.
The writ petition is misconceived and stands dismissed with no order as to costs.”
.
This Court was once again confronted with a similar situation in Civil Writ Petition No.4188 of 1992, titled as Balbir Singh Nain and others versus The State of Haryana and otheRs.which was disposed of vide order dated September 19, 2013, by holding: “In this case only an intimation was given by the HUDA about the decision of the Government taken with regard to the allotment of the plots out of discretionary quota.
There was not even a proposal or an offer.
In fact, the offer was to follow after the requisite affidavit had been submitted by the petitioners within fifteen days from the date of issue of memoranda dated 18.05.1987 (Annexure P-1 to P-4).to the effect that they did not possess any other plot/house in Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -16- Urban Estate, Jind, in their own name or in the name of their spouse or any of the family members dependent upon them and that they had not been allotted at any time a plot or land in any Urban Estate out of Haryana Government discretionary quota in their or their spouse’s name or in the name of any of their family membeRs.The petitioners though claim to have submitted their requisite affidavits on different dates, i.e., 15.06.1987, 25.05.1987, 22.05.1987 in the office of Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Manimajra, U.T.Chandigarh, but no letter of allotment was ever issued in their favour.
Petitioners also did not even deposit any money.
Thus, no concluded contract came into being.
The proposals were ultimately withdrawn without issuing any allotment letter and it appears that no step was taken towards the fulfilment of the said proposals.
It may be added here that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the State and there is a failure on the part of the State to discharge the statutory obligation.
The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate Tribunals and authorities exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction.
It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance.
In the instant case, it has not been shown by petitioners that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on the respondents which they failed to perform.
All Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -17- that is sought to be enforced is a hope flowing from an intimation which never ripened into a contract and which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable.”
.
Having gone through the cited judgments, we may now examine the controveRs.involved in the instant writ petition.
In this case only an intimation was given by the HUDA to the petitioner about the decision of the Government taken with regard to the allotment of plots out of discretionary quota.
There was not even a proposal or an offer of allotment.
In fact, the offer was to follow after the requisite affidavit had been submitted and amount equivalent to 25% of the price of the plot having been deposited.
Admittedly, the amount equivalent to 25% of the price of the plot was not deposited by the petitioner and, as such, no letter of allotment was ever issued in his favour.
Thus, no concluded contract came into being.
The proposals for allotment of plots, out of discretionary quota, however, were ultimately withdrawn without issuing any allotment letter and it appears that no step was taken towards the fulfilment of the said proposals.
It may be added here that a writ of mandamus can only be issued in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the State and there is failure on the part of the State to discharge said statutory duty/obligation.
The chief function of a writ is to enforce the performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate Tribunals and authorities, exercising public functions, within the limit of their jurisdiction.
It, therefore, follows that in order to pray that mandamus may be issued to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which casts Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -18- a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to get enforced its performance.
In the instant case it has not been shown by petitioners that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on the respondents which they have failed to perform.
All that is sought to be enforced is a hope flowing from an intimation which never had ripened into a contract and, as already indicated, that intimation given to the petitioner is neither binding upon the respondents nor is enforceable at the instance of the petitioner.
A reference to memorandum dated 10.07.1995 would show that it is clearly stated therein that in the event of failure to deposit the demanded amount within the period specified for the purpose, the offer would stand withdrawn.
As regards petitioner's contention that this memorandum was not received by him, it only needs to be stated that the petitioner slept over the matter after submitting his affidavit on 29.06.1995 and woke up from his slumber, on 01.03.2002, i.e., after more than six yeaRs.and issued notice to the respondent, Estate Officer.
Had the petitioner been a little vigilant and pursued his case for allotment of the plot, the demand raised, vide memorandum dated 10.07.1995, would have come to his notice and the scenario, perhaps, would have been otherwise.
Law comes to help those who are vigilant about their rights.
As regards the contention that the memorandum dated 10.07.1995 ought to have been sent by registered post as required by Section 42 of the Act, it only needs to be stated that it was not a notice or order under the Act and that Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -19- being so provisions of Section 42 of the Act are not attracted.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that till date no concluded contract, enforceable in law, has come into existence As regards the judgment in the case of Jitender Nath Joshi and another versus Haryana Urban Development Authority (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, suffice it to say that it is of no assistance to the case of the petitioner firstly, because it does not lay down a binding precedent in so far as it has been passed without noticing the ratio of the judgment in the case of S.R.Dass versus State of Haryana and Others (supra) whereby only those allotments were saved where the allottees had started construction after getting the plans sanctioned before the order of cancellation came to be passed and even the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of HaRs.Dhingra versus State of Haryana and otheRs.(2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 550 has held that, “allotments orders made prior to 23.04.1996 can be cancelled if they are not made in conformity with the decision in S.R.Dass v.
State of Haryana after following due procedure”., and secondly, because in a later decision in Letters Patent Appeal No.2044 of 2011, 'Ram Kumar Aggarwal versus State of Haryana and otheRs.(supra) decided on 09.11.2011, a Division Bench of this Court has rejected prayer for such an allotment saying, “If the transparency in the procedure for allotment of plots has not been maintained then there is no possibility for issuing any direction for allotment of plot to the appellant- petitioner.
The principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 would be shattered if anyone is permitted to take away the benefit of Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P.Nos.18360 of 2006 and 12001 of 1993 -20- the State largesse in a clandestine manner.”
.
and nothing to the contrary has been shown during the couRs.of hearing.
In the consequence, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (MAHAVIR S.
CHAUHAN) JUDGE JUDGE3009.2013 adhikari Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.10.11 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh