(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. B. Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondents. The advertisement was issued by the respondents on 04/11/2011 inviting tenders in sealed covers for auctioning various plots and sheds of Rajkot / Jamnagar regions of various estates including Aji Industrial Estate of Rajkot Region, Plot No. 43D. This Plot No. 43D was mentioned in the advertisement as commercial plot. The petitioner was an applicant and applied for the allotment of the plot for canteen purpose and submitted requisite bank draft etc. Since, the plot was not allotted to the petitioner, therefore, he has filed the writ petition.
2. In the affidavit in reply it is admitted by the respondents that plot reserved for commercial purpose, also includes canteen purpose. It is relevant to extract Para 2 of the affidavit in reply:
“2. It is submitted that so far as infrastructure development and division of the plot is done at the highest level and plot in question bearing No.43/D situated at Aji Industrial Estate at Rajkot was reserved specially for canteen purpose. However, as the plot was reserved for canteen purpose, it could not be allowed to be used as commercial plot. Under the circumstances, it was a bona fide mistake on the part of the GIDC in advertising the said plot for commercial purpose and it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein had filled in the tender and the tender of the petitioner was accepted. Looking to the averments made in the petition as well as the letter dated 26.01.2010 in which the petitioner applied for the said plot as canteen plot. That as the plot was reserved for canteen purpose, the offer of the petitioner was rejected and communication was effected vide different letters dated 24.01.2012, 14.02.2012 and 22.02.2012.”
3. In Para 3 of the affidavit in reply, it is admitted that in the advertisement, by mistake it was mentioned that it was for commercial purpose, though it should mention that it was for canteen purpose. However, it is admitted to the respondents that the petitioner has deposited Demand Draft and has prayed by letter that his application be treated for canteen purpose. Since, the respondents admit that the plot is for canteen purpose and the petitioner is claiming the allotment of plot for canteen and the petitioner being the highest bidder for canteen plot, therefore, according to Mr. M. B. Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondents, there is no difficulty in allotting the plot to the petitioner for canteen purpose.
4. In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to allot Plot No. 43D, situated at Aji Industrial Estate at Rajkot for canteen purpose to the petitioner, within a period of one month. A copy of this order be produced before the respondents.
[ V. M. Sahai, J. ] [ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren