- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
U.G Hospitals Private Limited v. State Of Haryana And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) published newspaper advertisements on 14-6-2005 and 15-6-2005 inviting applications for two hospital plots in Gurgaon: a 12-acre plot in Sector 23-A and an 8.3-acre plot in Sector 51, with 29-6-2005 as the closing date. The appellant applied on 28-6-2005 for the Sector 51 plot. The fifth respondent applied on 15-6-2005 (received 27-6-2005) for the Sector 23-A plot, expressly requesting that, failing allotment of that plot, its application be considered for Sector 51.
A re-advertisement on 7-7-2005 extended the deadline to 20-7-2005. On 18-7-2005 the fifth respondent sent HUDA a letter noting size and usability concerns with the Sector 23-A site and reiterating its willingness to take the Sector 51 plot instead. This letter was not in the prescribed application form.
HUDA ultimately allotted the Sector 51 plot to the fifth respondent; no allotment was made for Sector 23-A. The fifth respondent secured building-plan sanction on 25-4-2006, completed construction by July 2007, and has operated its hospital on the site since 2007 under a conveyance deed dated 19-7-2007.
The appellant filed a writ petition in April 2007 seeking to quash the allotment to the fifth respondent and to obtain the Sector 51 plot, or alternatively the vacant Sector 23-A plot. On 1-12-2008 the High Court dismissed the petition, citing delay and absence of irregularity. The present appeal by special leave challenges that High Court order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether HUDA's allotment of the Sector 51 plot to the fifth respondent was irregular because the respondent’s formal application was for Sector 23-A and its subsequent request did not follow the prescribed form.
- Whether the appellant, having applied for the Sector 51 plot and participated in the allotment process, could belatedly challenge the allotment after a delay of approximately eighteen months.
- Whether, in the alternative, the appellant was entitled to allotment of the still-vacant Sector 23-A plot.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The fifth respondent’s only valid application—submitted in the prescribed form—was for Sector 23-A; its 18-7-2005 letter could not be treated as a proper application for Sector 51.
- Allotting Sector 51 to the fifth respondent violated the advertised eligibility and preference criteria and wrongfully displaced the appellant’s legitimate claim.
- Given that there were eventually only two applicants—appellant for Sector 51 and fifth respondent for Sector 23-A—HUDA should have allotted Sector 51 to the appellant and Sector 23-A to the fifth respondent, or at least awarded Sector 23-A to the appellant once Sector 51 went to the fifth respondent.
- The High Court failed to consider the appellant’s alternative prayer for the Sector 23-A plot.
State and HUDA's Arguments
- The re-advertisement of 7-7-2005 reopened the application window until 20-7-2005; the fifth respondent’s 18-7-2005 letter therefore constituted a timely application for Sector 51.
- Accordingly, the fifth respondent was eligible for allotment of either plot, and the allotment of Sector 51 was lawful.
Fifth Respondent's Arguments
- It had expressly sought Sector 51 as an alternative in both its original application and its 18-7-2005 letter under the extended deadline, making it a valid contender for that plot.
- The allotment was made nearly eighteen months before the appellant filed its writ petition; substantial construction and investment had since occurred, making any interference inequitable.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that although the fifth respondent’s request for Sector 51 was not in the prescribed form, the allotment had been made on 27-9-2005, followed by sanctioned construction and a functioning hospital since 2007. The appellant initiated litigation only on 2-4-2007, a delay of roughly one-and-a-half years after allotment. Given this lapse of time and the completed development, the Court held that the High Court rightly declined to disturb the allotment.
However, the Court accepted that the appellant had submitted a valid application that was effectively displaced when HUDA awarded the desired plot to the fifth respondent. Recognising the continuing availability of the Sector 23-A plot, the Court observed that HUDA “may consider” the appellant’s request for that plot in accordance with its rules, regulations, and on terms it deems fit.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s refusal to interfere with the allotment of the Sector 51 plot to the fifth respondent but directed HUDA to consider, without obligation, the appellant’s request for the vacant Sector 23-A plot.
Implications: The existing hospital run by the fifth respondent on Sector 51 remains undisturbed. While no new legal precedent is established, HUDA is invited to evaluate allotment of Sector 23-A to the appellant, potentially resolving the dispute administratively.
Order
1. Leave granted. Heard.
2. The Haryana Urban Development Authority (“HUDA”, for short), the second respondent herein, issued advertisements in the newspapers dated 14-6-2005 and 15-6-2005, inviting applications for allotment of a hospital plot measuring 12 acres in Sector 23-A, 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 advertisements, 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 HUDA on 27-6-2005) for allotment of the hospital plot in Sector 23-A, stating that if they were not allotted the plot in Sector 23-A, their application may be considered for allotment of the plot in Sector 51.
3. By readvertisement dated 7-7-2005, the last date for submission of applications was extended up to 20-7-2005 with a clarification that those who had applied earlier in response to the advertisements dated 14-6-2005/15-6-2005 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 23-A 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 the fifth respondent dated 15-6-2005 for the plot in Sector 23-A 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.
5. After considering the applications, HUDA allotted the plot at Sector 51 to the fifth respondent. The appellant was not allotted any plot. The plot at Sector 23-A was not allotted to anyone.
6. 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.
7. 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 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 23-A may be allotted to it. The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by the 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 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.
8. The appellant contends that the application for allotment by the fifth respondent was in regard to the hospital plot in Sector 23-A 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 23-A to the fifth respondent and the plot at Sector 51 to the appellant as per their respective applications.
9. It was contended that by allotting the plot at Sector 51 to the fifth respondent even though its application was for allotment of plot at Sector 23-A, HUDA committed an irregularity, thereby denying to the appellant its legitimate claim for allotment of a plot. It is further contended that when the application in the prescribed form by the fifth respondent was for allotment of plot at Sector 23-A, there was no justification for allotting the plot at Sector 51 to the fifth respondent. It was submitted that the appellant fulfilled the eligibility/preference criteria specified in the advertisement for allotment of the plot.
10. The 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 the 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 of the readvertisement issued on 7-7-2005 and therefore the allotment was legal.
11. Even though the application of the 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 is even running the hospital from 2007. The appellant filed the writ petition only on 2-4-2007, nearly one-and-half years after the allotment. In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in not interfering with the allotment that was made to the fifth respondent. We find no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court.
12. 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, of the appellant for the hospital plot at Sector 51 and of the fifth respondent for the hospital plot at Sector 23-A. The 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 23-A to the appellant. The appellant submitted that it was ready and willing to accept the plot at Sector 23-A 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 23-A made in the writ petition, was not considered by the High Court.
13. 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 the request of the appellant for allotment of the hospital plot at Sector 23-A on such terms as it deems fit, as per its rules and regulations in accordance with law.
14. With the said observations, this appeal is disposed of.
Alert