High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Tulison Industiral Machines Pvt. Ltd. Thru' Its Director v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 68650 of 2006  RD-AH 338 (5 January 2007)
Court No. 34
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68650 of 2006
Tulison Industrial Machines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
This petition has been filed for quashing the advertisement dated 8.11.2006 which has been issued by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'UPSIDC') inviting applications for allotment of plot measuring 20000 sq. mts. in the Industrial Area, Loni Road, Ghaziabad. A further relief has also been sought that the respondents should be restrained from interfering with the right and possession of the petitioner over plot No. 9A, Site II, Loni Road, Ghaziabad.
The petitioner Company was allotted plot No. 9 measuring 40364 sq. yds. in Industrial Area Site II, Loni Road, Ghaziabad. The lease-deed was executed on 23.1.1979 by the UPSIDC. The petitioner had initially deposited the earnest money of Rs. 18,426/- but the balance amount of Rs. 1,60,790/- was required to be deposited in 8 yearly instalments with interest @ 9% per annum. However, as the petitioner did not deposit the instalments as per the terms and conditions of the lease-deed, the allotment of plot No.9 in favour of petitioner was cancelled by the UPSIDC on 31.1.1972. After cancellation of the said allotment, plot No.9 was divided into two parts, namely, plot No. 9 measuring 15965 sq. yds. and plot No. 9A measuring 24399 sq. yds. The petitioner moved an application before the UPSIDC for restoring the allotment of plot No. 9A in its favour. The said application was considered by the UPSIDC in its Board meeting held on 30.3.1977. A perusal of the Minutes of the meeting indicates that a compromise was required to be entered into with the petitioner on certain terms and conditions. Such a compromise was, however, never entered into and the UPSIDC also filed an application under the provisions of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for removing the petitioner from plot No. 9A. The petitioner also filed Original Suit No. 984 of 1984 against the UPSIDC in the court of Munsif, Ghaziabad for allotment of plot No. 9 and the same was decreed ex parte in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner on 16.3.2004. An application Under Order XXXIX Rile 13, C.P.C. was then moved by the UPSIDC for recall of the said order. Plot No. 9Ahas been allotted in favour of M/s. K.G. Plastochem(I) Pvt. Ltd. which has been arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the present petition pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.11.2006. A lease-deed has also been executed in favour of the said respondent on 12.12.2006 and physical possession was also handed over on 13.12.2006. Plot No. 9 has been allotted to M/s. Hind Forge Private Ltd.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner on the basis of the decision taken by the Board in the meeting held on 30.3.1977 and it is on this account that the petitioner contends that the respondent Corporation could not have issued the advertisement in the news-paper for allotment of the plot.
We have heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the 0petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Vivek Mathur, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the decision taken by the Board in its meeting held on 30.3.1977 for restoring the possession of plot No. 9A in favour of the petitioner has not been subsequently modified or superseded by any other resolution of the Board and, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent Corporation to issue the advertisement for allotment of the said plot.
Sri Vivek Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, however, submitted that the resolution of the Board clearly required a compromise to be entered into between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation but no such compromise was executed and, therefore, in the absence of any such compromise, the resolution of the Board does not help the petitioner at all. He further contended that the petitioner has approached this Court after a period of almost 29 years from the date the Board passed the resolution and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent, in whose favour the said plot has been allotted, made similar statements.
It is not in dispute that as the petitioner had failed to comply with the terms and conditions contained in the lease-deed executed on 23.1.1971, the allotment of plot No.9 in favour of the petitioner had been cancelled by the UPSIDC by the order dated 31.1.1972. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the resolution of the Board taken in the meeting held on 30.3.1977 but the said resolution does not help the petitioner as the compromise deed was never executed between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation as was contemplated under the resolution. The petitioner kept quite for a long period of 29 years and if he was really interested in the compromise he would have approached this Court at the earliest but the petitioner did not do so. On other hand, the petitioner vide Original Suit No. 984 of 1984 for allotment of 15965 sq. yds. even though under the resolution of the Board, the petitioner was not entitled for allotment of the said area. The conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles the petitioner from claiming any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner never wanted to implement the resolution of the Board. It is only when the advertisement was issued by the respondent Corporation on 8.11.2006 for allotment that the petitioner approached this Court. This apart, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the resolution of the Board as the compromise that was required to be entered into was never executed between the parties.
There is, therefore, no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.