Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 56046 of 2013 Petitioner :- M/S Promotional Club Thru Sh. Keshav Verma Respondent :- Chief Executive Officer N.O.I.D.A. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar, Chandra Kumar Rai, Deba Siddiqui, Kshitij Shailendra, Munesh K. Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Shivam Yadav
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the NOIDA.
The petitioner M/s Promotional Club is a partnership firm of mother and son viz. Smt. Urmila Dei Sadh and Ratan Mani. It is engaged in the manufacturing and export of ready-made garments.
The petitioner made two applications No.284 and 285 for the allotment of plot of larger than 2000 sq. meter in Phase - II & III of the Industrial Area, NOIDA on lease of 90 years in the open ended scheme advertised by the NOIDA.
In the scheme the registration opened on 5.3.2010. The NOIDA reserved the right to close it any point without prior notice and without assigning reasons. The NOIDA closed the scheme on 5.7.2012.
The scheme, inter alia, provided that the applicants registered under the scheme would be interviewed by the Screening Committee of NOIDA and that the authorized representative would be given opportunity to appear before the Committee to explain the project and its details for which the date would be communicated to the applicant separately. The date of interview would also be available on the website of the NOIDA. In case the applicant fails to appear before the Screening Committee on the scheduled date his application shall be rejected and the registration money shall be refunded.
The two applications of the applicant complete in all respect were submitted and registered on 9.12.2011, during the period the scheme was open.
The NOIDA vide separate letters dated 7.11.2012 refunded the registration amount of Rs.8 lakh to the petitioner stating that the scheme having been closed the same is being refunded.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the refund of the registration amount and has preferred this writ petition seeking various directions, inter alia, commanding the NOIDA to consider its applications No.284 and 285 and to make allotment of the plots in its favour and for the quashing of the illegal allotments made by it.
It is not disputed that the applications of the petitioner complete in all respect were duly submitted and were accordingly registered during the subsistence of the scheme. The supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent pursuant to the order of the Court dated 23.1.2019 discloses that a total of 90 applications were received under the scheme out of which 65 applications were rejected and industrial plots were allotted to 15 applicants only. It is admitted on record that under the scheme a total of 27 plots were available for allotment and only 15 were allotted. Thus, 12 plots remained unallotted.
The petitioner contends that it was not given any notice or information for appearing in the interview before the Screening Committee. The applications of the petitioner for allotment were registered during the subsistence of the scheme and, therefore, NOIDA is not justified in returning the registration amount on the ground that the scheme has been closed, particularly when plots in the scheme had remained unallotted.
The NOIDA is not disputing that the plots remained unallotted in the scheme. In the supplementary counter affidavit it also admits that the representative of the two applicants were not called for interview before the Screening Committee.
Treating the petitioner to be the two applicants whose representatives were not called for interview and the fact that the counsel for the NOIDA accepted that their exists no reason why its representative was not called for interview, the Court on 22.5.2019 directed the counsel for the NOIDA to take instructions if the applications of the petitioner can still be considered for allotment of plots from amongst the remaining unallotted plots. In response to the above direction of the Court Sri Shivam Yadav submits that 8 plots still remain unallotted and that the NOIDA will consider the allotment of plots to the petitioner if the Court so directs.
There is no dispute to the fact that the registration in the scheme opened on 5.3.2010 and was closed on 5.12.2012. The petitioner had applied for allotment and its two applications were registered on 9.12.2011 much before the scheme was notified to be closed.
In view of the above, all applications duly received and registered during the subsistence of the scheme were required to be considered for allotment subject to availability of the plots. Thus, the registration money of the petitioner could not have been refunded due to subsequent closure of the scheme.
Sub-Clause h(i) & (ii) of Clause 2 of the Terms and Conditions for Allotment of Industrial Plot Larger than 2000 sq. meters as contained in the brochure of the above open ended scheme reads as under:
“h. (i) Applicants registered with the bank would be interviewed by the Screening Committee of NOIDA. The applicant or his authorised representative is required to appear before the Screening Committee to explain the details of his proposed project. The date of interview shall be communicated to the applicant separately. The date of interview can also be seen at NOIDA's website www.noidaauthorityonline.com.
(ii) The registered applicants, who fail to present themselves before the Screening Committee on scheduled date, their applications shall be rejected and registration money shall be refunded. No claim whatsoever for such applications shall be entertained in future.”
The aforesaid condition mandates that the representative of the applicants duly registered are entitled to appear for interview before the Screening Committee to explain the proposed project and that the dates of interview would be intimated by NOIDA. The petitioner has categorically averred that it was not informed of any date for interview and that without giving its representative an opportunity to explain the proposed project, its registration money has been refunded.
It has come on record that the representative of the two applicants were not invited for interview for which no reason exists. This clearly refers to two applications of the petitioner as there is no other person claiming that he was not called for interview. The NOIDA is also not alleging that the petitioner was invited for interview and that the two applicants who were not invited for interview refers to some other person, other than the petitioner.
This means that the candidature of the petitioner was never considered for allotment of the plots and without opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the Screening Committee its registration money has been refunded. This exercise on the part of the NOIDA is clearly within the teeth of the above mandatory condition and reflects the discriminatory attitude and the arbitrary nature of its working.
The applications which were registered and were complete in all manner could not have been ignored. The non consideration of such applications which is clearly reflected in the action of the NOIDA in not inviting the representative of the petitioner for interview before the Screening Committee on the face of it is discriminatory and arbitrary. A public authority like NOIDA cannot be legally permitted to act in such a manner and contrary to its own terms and conditions.
Accordingly, we are of the of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to consideration of its two applications for the purposes of allotment in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to re-deposit the registration amount of Rs.8 lakh each in respect of its two applications with NOIDA within a period of one month and on deposit of such registration amount the applications No.284 and 285 would be deemed to have been revived and the NOIDA would consider them in accordance with law for the purposes of allotment of the un-allotted remaining plots in Phase - II & III of the industrial area, NOIDA within a period of two months from the aforesaid deposit.
A writ of mandamus is issued accordingly and the writ petition stands allowed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Brijesh