Anil Jawa Vs. the Chief Administrator, H.U.D.A. and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of state government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law - in spite of his best efforts the petitioner could not succeed either in getting the physical possession of the plot from the respondent no. as he had failed to complete the same, the respondent no. the petitioner failed to complete even a single formality as per the letter of intent. since the petitioner failed to complete the formalities, the respondent no. sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner to fulfil the complete formalities but he failed to do so. jawa, father of the petitioner, in which there is an acknowledgement with regard to the letter of intent and it has also been clearly stated that a plot had been offered for allotment. annexure p4 is the other letter dated 9.9.1985 in which it has been clearly stated to the petitioner that he was required to complete all the formalities within six months from the date of issue of letter of intent but he has not completed the requisite formalities and he was again directed to do the same at an early date. annexure p7 is the letter dated 9.12.1985 issued by the petitioner in which he has complained that he had not received the physical possession of the plot and the same may be delivered to him. this letter thus clearly raised the fact of annexure p6 though which it has been certified on papers that industrial plot no. 23 with his best efforts and came to the conclusion that this plot had been encroached.r.l. anand, j.1. anil jawa son of shri r.s. jawa claiming himself to be the allottee of plot no. 23, industrial area, gurgaon has filed the present civil writ petition under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india against the chief administrator, and estate officer, haryana urban development authority, gurgaon, respondents no. 1 and 2 respectively, in the nature of certiorari seeking the quashment of annexure p9, the memo withdrawing the letter of intent, as also for the quashing of annexure p 15, the order dismissing his appeal. the petitioner has prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued against the respondents to allot and deliver the possession of the said plot measuring half acre to the petitioner, or in the alternative to allot and. deliver the possession of any other plot of the same size in industrial area, gurgaon.2. the case set up by the petitioner is that he was allotted plot no. 23 in industrial area, gurgaon (haryana). in response to an advertisement issued by the respondents offering industrial plots in industrial area, gurgaon, the petitioner submitted an application for the allotment of an industrial plot as he was a qualified unemployed engineer having done his bachelor of engineering in mechanical engineering. the respondent no. 2 vide memo dated 21.7.1984 informed the petitioner that it had decided to offer an industrial plot measuring 1/2. acre to him and the earnest money of rs. 27,860/- already paid along with the application by him had been accepted and the petitioner was further required to make the payment of the balance amount of rs. 41.814/- in order to complete 25 per cent cost of the plot. the balance 75 per cent of the price of the plot was to be paid in six equal annual instalments along with interest @ 10 per cent per annum on the same. the amount of rs. 41,814/- was to be paid within 30 days of the issuance of the letter and the petitioner deposited this amount with the office of respondent no. 2 on 17.8.1984 against receipt no. 19, book no. 23. the petitioner was advised to complete the relevant formalities in the matter. vide memo dated 9.11.1984, the petitioner was informed that plot no. 23 aforesaid had been duly earmarked in his name, which may be noted for further correspondence. though the petitioner had been waiting for the regular allotment, but surprisingly he received a letter dated 9.9.1985 alleging that the petitioner had not completed the formalities within six months. the petitioner reverted back to the respondent no. 2 that he had been requesting for the copy of the zoning regulation/plan and for that reason he could not meet the required formalities. he made specific request for the supply of zoning regulation/plan so that the necessary formalities may be completed. on 21.11.1985, the possession of the plot, which was earmarked and identified for the petitioner, was delivered. the petitioner, however admits that he was given only a paper possession. the physical possession of the plot was never delivered to him, nor he was supplied with the zoning plan though he had been visiting the office of respondent no. 2 time and again. the petitioner also tried to find out the physical location of the plot and when he actually traced the exact plot, it was found that certain encroachment/unauthorised construction was already existing at the site of the plot. resultantly, the petitioner contacted the staff of respondent no. 2 and requested that the encroachments which were basically of permanent nature be got removed and the physically possession of the plot be delivered to him so that he may be able to take further necessary action. in spite of his best efforts the petitioner could not succeed either in getting the physical possession of the plot from the respondent no. 2 or in getting any other help or relief. the petitioner was also informed that he should not contact the officials of respondent no. 2 and as and when the encroachment would be cleared, he shall be duly informed in this regard. finally, the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 14.2.1990 that it has been decided to withdraw the letter of intent of industrial plot no. 23 from the name of the petitioner with immediate effect. the petitioner replied to this letter but respondent no. 2 expressed its inability to do anything in the matter. resultantly, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no. 1. he had been waiting for the fate of the appeal and finally when he visited the office of respondent no. 1 on 16.12.1992, he was informed that the appeal has already been decided against him ex parte. in the meanwhile, the petitioner also received a copy of the order passed by respondent no. 1 vide which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. with above broad allegations, the petitioner has sought the prayer referred to above in this judgment.3. notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. according to the respondents, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. the estate officer, respondent no. 2, passed the impugned order annexure p8 on 14.2.1990 withdrawing the letter of intent of the plot in question and the appeal against the said order was decided against the petitioner on 15.10.1991. the present writ petition has been filed on 21.1.1993. therefore, it should be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. on merits, the stand of the respondents is that though an industrial plot was offered for allotment but the letter annexure p1 was a provisional letter, because before making permanent allotment the petitioner was required to fulfil certain formalities. the respondents stated that zoning plan was enclosed with the letter annexure p1. the petitioner has just concocted the allegations that zoning plan has not been provided to him. the petitioner was required to fulfil the formalities within 180 days. as he had failed to complete the same, the respondent no. 2 had to write a letter dated 9.9.1985, annexure p4, informing the petitioner to complete the formalities. the zoning plan was again supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 23.12.1985. the physical possession was never delivered to the petitioner because the same could not be delivered before the completion of all the formalities. the petitioner avoided to complete the formalities as he had no intention to install any industry but he wanted to retain the plot with a view to take premium by transferring the same on higher rates. the petitioner failed to complete even a single formality as per the letter of intent. since the petitioner failed to complete the formalities, the respondent no. 2 had no other alternative but to withdraw the plot from the petitioner vide annexure p8. as the petitioner was required to complete the formalities within a stipulated period of 180 days, but he did not do so even within a period of seven years and, therefore, the letter of allotment was withdrawn from him vide letter dated 14.2.1990, annexure p8. sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner to fulfil the complete formalities but he failed to do so. hence a speaking order was passed and the appeal was dismissed vide order annexure p-15. in short, the defence of the respondents is that as the petitioner had not complete the formalities, therefore, the letter of intent was withdrawn.4. the petitioner filed a re-joinder to the written statement of the respondents in which he denied the allegations of the respondents by reiterating that of the writ petition.5. in support of his case, the petitioner has placed on record annexure p1, the letter of intent dated 21.7.1984, vide which he was informed that the respondents had decided to offer him an industrial plot measuring half acre in the industrial estate, gurgaon. it was also informed that a sum of rs. 27,876/- had already been received and a further sum of rs. 41,814/- was to be deposited by the petitioner. the other formalities which were required to be complied with by the petitioner, have also been indicated in this letter, annexure p2 is the letter dated 1.10.1984 issued by shri r.s. jawa, father of the petitioner, in which there is an acknowledgement with regard to the letter of intent and it has also been clearly stated that a plot had been offered for allotment. annexure p3 is the letter issued by the estate officer to the petitioner on 9.11.1984 in which again it is reiterated that half acre of land has been offered to the petitioner for allotment. annexure p4 is the other letter dated 9.9.1985 in which it has been clearly stated to the petitioner that he was required to complete all the formalities within six months from the date of issue of letter of intent but he has not completed the requisite formalities and he was again directed to do the same at an early date. annexure p5 is the letter dated 27.9.1985 from the side of the petitioner in which he had stated that copy of the zoning regulation/plan was not sent to him along with the letter of intent and he asked for the same. annexure p6 is the certificate indicating that the possession of the plot in question has been given to the petitioner and further there is a certificate to the effect that this plot has been allotted/transferred by the estate officer, huda, gurgaon vide letter no. 3461 dated 21.7.1984. i will deal with this certificate in the later portion of this judgment because some argument has been built on this letter. annexure p7 is the letter dated 9.12.1985 issued by the petitioner in which he has complained that he had not received the physical possession of the plot and the same may be delivered to him. this letter thus clearly raised the fact of annexure p6 though which it has been certified on papers that industrial plot no. 23 has been allotted to the petitioner and that its possession has been delivered to him. annexure p8 is the letter issued by the estate officer, huda, gurgaon to the petitioner intimating him that they have decided to withdraw the letter of intent from his name as he had not completed the required formalities within 180 days. annexure p9 is yet another letter issued by the petitioner in which he has given the excuses as to why he has not completed the formalities. annexure p10 is the grounds of appeal. annexure p 11 is the letter dated 23.9.1991 issued by the industrial assistance group indicating that loan application for rs. 67.12 lacs has been given to m/s jawa industries pvt. limited. for our purposes annexure p12, p13 and p14 are not of much use but annexure p 15 is the order of the appellate authority dated 15.10.1991, vide which the appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the administrator, huda.6. i have heard mr. sanjiv walia, advocate, on behalf of the petitioner, mr. o.p. sharma, advocate on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case.7. the point which survives for determination is whether there was any firm allotment in favour of the petitioner; whether the possession of plot no. 23, sector 18, gurgaon was ever delivered to the petitioner; whether the petitioner ever complied with the formalities of the letter of intent annexure p1 and whether the relief as prayed for can be granted to the petitioner or not and if point no. 4 goes against the petitioner, whether he is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by him along with interest or not.8. annexure p1 cannot be read as an allotment. it was only a provisional letter of intent as the language of the letter itself shows that it was decided by the huda to offer an industrial plot measuring half acre in the industrial estate, gurgaon. there was no firm allotment. this could only be done when the petitioner fulfilled all the other formalities as required under the letter of intent annexure p1. according to this letter, it was obligatory upon the petitioner before getting a firm allotment to get the drawings of his unit prepared from an architect registered with huda and submit the same to the estate officer. he was also supposed to apply for loan, if required, to meet the cost of land, building and machinery. further, it was cast upon the petitioner to get the unit registered with general manager of the district industrial centre either as a small scale unit or a medium scale unit. he was also supposed to apply to haryana state electricity board for the release of electric connection. he was also supposed to supply a list of plant and machinery which was to be installed by the petitioner for scrutiny and all these formalities were supposed to be complied with by him within 180 days. categorically it was mentioned in the letter that the issuance of the same would not confer any legal right for allotment to the petitioner unless the final allotment letter is issued. thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that letter annexure p1 was a letter of allotment in favour of the petitioner. it was only an offer subject to certain conditions, which in this case were never completed or complied with by the petitioner and there is no evidence prima facie on the record to this effect. the petitioner throughout had been complaining to the respondents that he was not supplied with the zoning plan which had prevented him from complying with the formalities. this is again an excuse, because the first letter which is placed on record is annexure p2 dated 1.10.1984. the letter annexure p1 was issued on 21.7.1984. there is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioner made earnest efforts to comply with the essential formalities before a regular allotment could be issued in his favour. in this view of the matter, it is decided that there was no allotment in favour of the petitioner and that the petitioner never complied with the formalities.9. the third point which survives for determination is what is the effect of annexure p6. it is the case of the petitioner himself that the physical possession of the property was never given to him. only the paper possession was given and that is so written in annexure p6 itself at the top. there is no allotment or transfer in favour of the petitioner though the word 'allotted/transferred' has been written in annexure p6. the word 'allotted/transferred' has to be read in the light of the letter dated 21.7.1984. this is only a letter of intent through which the huda decided to offer the industrial plot. as per the allegations of the petitioner, he could not located plot no. 23 with his best efforts and came to the conclusion that this plot had been encroached. pucca structure had been built on this plot in the shape of buildings and till those buildings are removed, that plot could not be allotted to anybody. in this view of the matter, it can be safely concluded that through annexure p6 no possession was ever delivered to the petitioner. once this court has held that there was no allotment and possession was never delivered to the petitioner and the petitioner never complied with the formalities as required in annexure p1, the petitioner cannot seek the directions of this court for the respondents to allot him the plot in question or in the alternative any other plot of the same size in that area. the main relief as claimed by the petitioner is hereby declined.10. faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, then submitted that the direction be given to the respondents to return the amount of the petitioner which was deposited by him with the huda within a reasonable time and that the respondent-authorities are also liable to pay interest on the amount. there is a force in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. it is common case of the parties that with the application the petitioner deposited a sum of rs. 27,860/- and further an amount of rs. 41,814/- was also deposited. so, whatever amount is lying deposited with the respondents they must return it as the petitioner has not been able to get the plot. it has not been specifically denied by the respondents in the written statement that on plot no. 23 there was no encroachment or construction. in this view of the matter, this court can reasonably held that the respondents are retaining the money in an illegal manner and they are liable to refund the same along with interest.11. resultantly, while declining the main relief as prayed for in the writ petition, directions are given to the respondents to return the deposited amount to the petitioner within three months from today along with interest @ 18 per cent per annum and the interest shall start three months after the date of deposit and shall accrue to the petitioner till the payment is made by the respondents. the writ petition stands disposed of with above observations.