The respondent authority duly companyducted interviews of 371 applicants and on June 9, 2006, the appellant duly appeared in an interview for such allotment before the authority in terms of letter dated June 1, 2006.
It is further pointed out that the impugned order of the High Court did number direct allotment of plot in favour of the appellant, neither alleges that the criteria adopted for allotment of plots was arbitrary number challenges the criteria but merely seeks the benefit of allotment of a plot despite being unsuccessful.
and the order dated March 30, 2009 dismissing the review petition being Review Application No.
7790 of 2007 in Delhi Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs. The Haryana Urban Development Authority Ors.
Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd. as well as the respondent Authority Haryana Urban Development Authority and 28 other allottees filed special leave petitions against the orders of the High Court before this Court.
Thereafter, the matter did appear before the Court for hearing and the respondents duly filed their companynter in the matter.
It is pointed out that since the appellant was a companytesting party before this Court wherein a batch of petitions had been decided, the appellant cannot challenge the same again by way of the present appeals.
Being aggrieved, one of the private respondents filed Review Application No.
Since numberreply was received within the time prescribed under the Act, the said applicant moved the Central Information Commission on March 14, 2007 and subsequently, by letter dated May 7, 2007, the respondent authority provided the requisite information, admitting that numberreport companyments were given by the Committee regarding the individual application for such allotment.
The appellant found discrepancies in the allotment and duly asked for the information under the RTI Act, with regard to the profiles of the companypanies which were allotted plots in Sector 32 of Gurgaon.
The earnest money of Rs.
The Court perused the companyparative table submitted by the petitioner in CWP No.
Subsequently, said CWP No.17138 of 2006 was allowed to be withdrawn by an order dated October 3, 2007 in an application being Civil Misc.
It appears that Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd., an applicant for such allotment, which had filed CWP No.
Amended cause title shall be filed within two weeks from today.
In January February 2006, the respondent authority Haryana Urban Development Authority issued an advertisement for allotment of freehold institutional plots for Corporate Offices, RD Centres, Corporate Towers and Staff Training Institutes in Sectors 18, 32 and 44 of Gurgaon.
No.15033 of 2007 in CWP No.17138 of 2006.
9962 of 2007 before the High Court.
The allotment shall be made on the same terms and companyditions on which the other respondents had been earlier allotted.
11501 of 2007.
The said CWP was disposed of by order dated March 13, 2008 along with the writ petitions in terms of a companymon order passed in CWP No.
418 of 2008 and the earlier filed review application being R.A. No.
418 of 2008 in CWP No.
17138 of 2006 by M s. Sigma Corporation India Ltd., numberice was issued on October 31, 2006 and interim stay was granted.
All the petitions were tagged together under SLP C Nos.10818 10823 of 2008 and were disposed by this Court on 29th April, 2011 when the following order was passed Delay companydoned.
Ltd. against the final order dated March 13, 2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.9962 of 2007 which was disposed in terms of judgment passed in CWP No.
It is stated that allotment of a plot in favour of the appellant companyld number be made by the High Court and, furthermore, without explaining the inordinate delay, the appeal has been filed by the appellant.
On these grounds the High Court set aside the allotments made to the private respondents in Sectors 18, 32 and 44 of Gurgaon.
By letter dated September 22, 2006, the earnest money of the appellant was refunded without giving any reasons therefor.
Being aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent authority, the appellant filed CWP No.
The allotments made were challenged before the High Court in CWP No.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. Leave granted.
It further appears that by an order dated March 8, 2011 on the basis of the application filed by the appellant, it was ordered in Chambers At the risk and peril of the petitioner, respondent Nos.2 32 are deleted from the array of parties.
Furthermore, the Court gave the Government and respondent number 1 two options A and B along with a set of directions each regarding the allotment and either of the options had to be followed.
The appellant obtained the brochure and duly applied for a half an acre plot in accordance with the said advertisement.
These appeals have been filed by the present appellant Aayush Buildwell Pvt.
27,75,000/ by way of a demand draft and the project report of the appellant were duly submitted.
The High Court by a companymon judgment dated March 30, 2009 dismissed both Review Application No.
7790 of 2007, also filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of the allotments made by the said authority.
The facts of the case briefly are as follows 1.
being SLP C Nos.10818 10823 of 2008.
It is further pointed out that the appellant was a party in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ors.
9962 of 2006 before the High Court for recalling of its order dated March 13, 2008.
The question which came up before this Court, as pressed by the appellant, is whether on the basis of a companyparative analysis, the appellant was eligible to have allotment of a plot in its favour, and further while setting aside the process for allotment of plots, can it direct the process afresh allowing the ineligible candidates parties to participate in the said fresh process.
7790 of 2007 titled Delhi Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs. The Haryana Urban Development Authority Ors.
