Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.804 OF 2011
[Arising out of SLP [C] No.8419 of 2009]
U.G.Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors. … Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted. Heard.
2. Haryana Urban Development Authority (‘HUDA’ for
short), the second respondent herein, issued an
th th
advertisement in the newspapers dated 14 and 15 June,
2005, inviting applications for allotment of a hospital
plot measuring 12 acres in Sector 23A, Gurgaon, and a
hospital plot measuring 8.3 Acres in Sector 51, Gurgaon,
from persons interested on or before 29.6.2005. In response
to the said advertisement, the appellant applied for the
hospital plot in Sector 51 on 28.6.2005. The fifth
respondent applied on 15.6.2005 (said to have been received
by the HUDA on 27.6.2005) for allotment of the hospital
plot in Sector 23A, stating that if they were not allotted
2
the plot in Sector 23A, their application may be considered
for allotment of the plot in Sector 51.
3. By re-advertisement dated 7.7.2005, the last date for
submission of applications was extended upto 20.7.2005 with
a clarification that those who had applied earlier in
response to the advertisement dated 14/15.6.2005 need not
apply again. The fifth respondent gave a letter dated
18.7.2005 to HUDA stating that on physical verification it
was found that the plot in Sector 23A was only 8.66 acres
and not 12 acres and there was also some difficulties in
regard to use of the entire plot for construction and
therefore, their application may be considered for
allotment of the plot in Sector 51.
4. Both the advertisements required the applicants to
apply for allotment in the form prescribed in the
advertisements. While the application of fifth respondent
dated 15.6.2005 for the plot in Sector 23A was in the
prescribed form, the subsequent letter dated 18.7.2005
seeking allotment of the plot in Sector 51 was not an
application in the prescribed form, but was only a request
letter. After considering the applications, HUDA allotted
3
the plot at Sector 51 to the fifth respondent. The
appellant was not allotted any plot. The plot at Sector 23A
was not allotted to any one.
5. In pursuance of such allotment, the fifth respondent
obtained sanction of a building plan on 25.4.2006 and
completed the construction of hospital building in July,
2007. A deed of conveyance dated 19.7.2007 was executed in
favour of the fifth respondent in regard to the plot at
Sector 51. The fifth respondent’s hospital is stated to be
functioning in the plot at Sector 51, from 2007 itself.
6. In April, 2007, the appellant filed a writ petition
for quashing the allotment letter dated 27.9.2005 issued in
favour of the fifth respondent in regard to allotment of
the hospital plot at Sector 51 and seeking a direction to
the HUDA and the State to allot the said plot at Sector 51
in its favour. Alternatively the appellant prayed that the
vacant hospital plot at Sector 23A may be allotted to it.
The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by
impugned order dated 1.12.2008, on the ground that there
was considerable delay in filing the writ petition
challenging the allotment in favour of the fifth
respondent. The High Court also found that there was no
4
irregularity in allotting the plot in Sector 51 to the
fifth respondent. It held that the appellant who had
participated in the process of allotment without
questioning the same, could not challenge the allotment in
favour of the fifth respondent. The said order is
challenged in this appeal by special leave.
7. The appellant contends that the application for
allotment by the fifth respondent was in regard to the
hospital plot in Sector 23A and the letter given on
18.7.2005 could not be considered as an application for
allotment of plot at Sector 51. It was submitted that HUDA
ought to have allotted the plot at Sector 23A to fifth
respondent and plot at Sector 51 to the appellant as per
their respective applications. It was contended that by
allotting the plot at Sector 51 to fifth respondent even
though its application was for allotment of plot at Sector
23A, HUDA committed an irregularity, thereby denying the
appellant to its legitimate claim for allotment of a plot.
It is further contended that when the application in the
prescribed form by fifth respondent was for allotment of
plot at Sector 23A, there was no justification for
allotting the plot at Sector 51 to fifth respondent. It was
5
submitted that the appellant fulfilled the
eligibility/preference criteria specified in the
advertisement for allotment of the plot.
8. Learned counsel for the State and HUDA submitted that
a fresh advertisement was issued in the newspapers on
7.7.2005 extending the date for making applications till
20.7.2005 and the application dated 18.7.2005 given by
fifth respondent sought allotment of the plot in Sector 51
and therefore the fifth respondent was an applicant for the
plot at Sector 51 also. The fifth respondent submitted that
it had applied for the alternative plot, that is plot at
Sector 51 in pursuance to the re-advertisement on 7.7.2005
and therefore the allotment was legal.
9. Even though the application of fifth respondent for
the plot at Sector 51 was not in the prescribed form, the
allotment was made as long back as on 27.9.2005 and the
fifth respondent has constructed and running the hospital
even from 2007. The appellant filed the writ petition only
on 2.4.2007, nearly one and a half years after the
allotment. In the circumstances, the High Court was
justified in not interfering with the allotment that was
6
made to the fifth respondent. We find no reason to
interfere with the decision of the High Court.
10. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that though there were several applications,
ultimately, all other applications were withdrawn, and
there were only two applications for the two plots, that
is, appellant for hospital plot at Sector 51 and fifth
respondent for hospital plot at Sector 23A. Learned counsel
for the appellant submitted that the plot at Sector 51
having been allotted to the fifth respondent, HUDA ought to
have at least allotted the plot at Sector 23A to appellant.
The appellant submitted that it was ready and willing to
accept the plot at Sector 23A on ‘as is where is basis’,
irrespective of the site condition. It is also submitted
that the alternative prayer for allotment of the plot at
Sector 23A made in the writ petition, was not considered by
the High Court.
11. Having regard to the fact that the appellant had made
a valid application for allotment and it was improperly
rejected on account of HUDA allotting the plot applied for
by the appellant to the fifth respondent (even though its
application was for a different plot), HUDA may consider
7
the request of the appellant for allotment of the hospital
plot at Sector 23A on such terms as it deems fit, as per
its rules and regulations in accordance with law.
12. With the said observations, this appeal is disposed of.
………..…………………………J.
(R V Raveendran)
New Delhi; …………..…………………………J.
January 19, 2011. (A K Patnaik)