Utt. HC: Conditional Liberty Must Override Statutory Embargo Under NDPS Act  ||  Utt. HC: While Exercising Inherent Jurisdiction, HC Does Not Function As Court of Appeal or Revision  ||  Pat. HC: Alcohol Consumption Cannot be Conclusively Proved Through Breath Analyzer Report  ||  Ker. HC: Emp. Messaging in Pvt. Whatsapp Group About Safety of Company Doesn’t Attract Disc. Proc.  ||  Ker. HC: Circular Issued to Enable Service of Notice, Summons Through E-Post in Trivandrum  ||  Gau. HC: Compensation Denied Over Death of Man Not Proved to be Bonafide Passenger  ||  Madras HC: Public Service is Being Performed by Lawyers, They Cannot be Denied Funds  ||  Gau. HC: Compensation Awarded to Wife of Deceased Driver Enhanced  ||  Bom. HC: Bar Council of Mah. & Goa Directed to Take Action Against Lawyer Who Appeared Without Band  ||  Delhi High Court: Bail Granted to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in Liquor Policy Scam Case    

M/s.Mangalam Arts Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. - (High Court of Rajasthan) (20 Apr 2022)

Depositing of amount unilaterally by the petitioner-firm, in absence of any allotment letter, would not create any right to claim allotment in its favour



The petitioner is a partnership firm, engaged in the activity of manufacturing and exporting handicrafts, wooden furniture and other items, having its manufacturing units at different locations. The petitioner-firm in order to establish its new industrial unit in the new Industrial Area has applied for allotment of plot in pursuance of the public notice dated 13.12.2015 issued by the Respondent-Corporation for different sizes. The petitioner-firm was found successful in the procedure of draw of lottery for allotment of plot and allotted with the plot vide allotment letter dated 18.02.2016. Accordingly, the petitioner-firm deposited the required amount and lease agreement was also executed in favour of the petitioner-firm.

Further, a notice dated 20.05.2017 was issued in different newspapers whereby three plots were offered for sale on “first come first serve” basis. The petitioner-firm has applied for allotment of plots on “first come first serve” basis along with requisite documents and made the payment in bank account of the Respondent-Corporation. The petitioner-firm had made a request to the authorities for allotment of plots at the earliest in order to expand their business and pleaded that for all purposes, priority of the petitioner-firm was first and all the formalities including payment of requisite amount and furnishing of all desired documents was made by the petitioner-firm, as per the terms and conditions. However, vide impugned order dated 07.07.2017 the Respondent-Corporation has sent back the cheques to the petitioner-firm intimating that money deposited by it is being returned as the allotment process had been cancelled at the Headquarters level.

Later on, an advertisement was issued by Respondent-Corporation on 29.04.2018 in all the daily newspapers stating that anybody who was desirous for allotment of those three plots could apply in pursuance of the said advertisement. The reserve price of plots has been however, enhanced, which was challenged by the Petitioner. The primary question to be decided in the present writ petition is as whether the authorities have acted arbitrarily in taking the decision of cancelling the allotment process which was based on the method of “first come first serve”.

This Court, considering the facts of the present case, finds that allotment of industrial plots on “first come first serve” basis is not approved in the interest of the Respondent-Corporation and as such, the decision cannot be termed arbitrary. Merely by depositing amount unilaterally by the petitioner-firm, in absence of any allotment letter, would not create any right to claim allotment in its favour. The respondent-Corporation has not acted arbitrarily or illegally in any manner while issuing the order cancelling the allotment process.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved