M/S GINNI ENTERPRISES M/S GINNI ENTERPRISES v. HARYANA AND ORS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207 CWP-20164 20164-2017 DATE OF DECISION: 18.11.2025 DATE OF DECISION: M/S GINNI ENTERPRISES M/S GINNI ENTERPRISES … Petitioner (s) Versus HARYANA AND ORS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL DEEPAK MANCHANDA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA HON’BLE MR Present: Mr. with Mr. Amit Jhanjhi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Eliza Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Eliza Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Kudrit Kaur Sara, Advocate for the Ms. Kudrit Kaur Sara, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. **** ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) (Annexure The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.09.2016 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.09.2016 industrial plot whereby the application of the petitioner for allotment of an industrial plot whereby the application of the petitioner for P-10) whereby the application of the petitioner for has been rejected and rejected and the order dated 10.10.2016 (Annexure P 11) wherein it is the order dated 10.10.2016 (Annexure P-11) wherein it is mentioned that the industrial plot that the industrial plots will be allotted through e will be allotted through e-auction only. 2. had Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner . A decision had been taken by the respondents to been running a dyeing unit. A decision had been taken by the respondents to . A decision had been taken by the respondents to been running a dyeing unit relocate the dyeing units located in residential areas to the industrial area carved relocate the dyeing units located in residential areas to the industrial area carved relocate the dyeing units located in residential areas to the industrial area carved relocate the dyeing units located in residential areas to the industrial area carved out in Sectors 29, Part II and Sector 30, Panipat, out in Sectors 29, Part II and Sector 30, Panipat was entitled to and therefore, he was entitled to allotment of an industrial plot carved out in ment of an industrial plot carved out in those sectors. The petitioner had those sectors. The petitioner had applied for allotment of an industrial plot on 08.08.2007 applied for allotment the respondents 08.08.2007 but the respondents have erroneously denied allotment on the pretext of have erroneously denied allotment on the pretext of a dispute between the SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.11.27 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20164-2017 -2- partners although the dispute itself had been resolved on 14.01.2014. He, therefore, submits that there was no impediment in allotment of the plot to the petitioner. He has also referred to the communication from Estate Officer, Panipat dated 05.05.2009 (Annexure P-4) wherein it is mentioned that request of the petitioner ought to have been considered after the dispute is resolved. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents while referring to the written statement submits that allotment to the petitioner could not be made on account of pendency of the dispute among the partners of the dyeing unit. The application had been made in the name of the petitioner company by one Jitender Kumar Khurana but one Nawal Kishore Jindal had raised an objection that plot be not allotted to Jitender Kumar Khurana but to him as he was the proprietor of the firm. The civil suit remained pending and therefore, when allotment was made to others, the same benefit could not be extended to the petitioner. 4. 5. Heard The petitioner is stated to be running a dyeing industrial unit. Some of the dyeing units were stated to be running in residential areas and causing pollution. A decision was taken by the respondents to shift them to the newly carved out Sector 29 and Sector 30, Panipat. Allotment is stated to have been made to those who were running the units but in the case of the petitioner, due to pendency of the civil dispute in relation to the proprietorship of the dyeing unit, allotment could not be made. It is manifest that a civil suit had been preferred by one Nawal Kishore Jindal against one Jitender Kumar Khurana on 04.03.2009 and both of whom claimed to be the proprietor of M/s Ginni Enterprises. The
Decision
suit had been disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.11.27 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20164-2017 -3- parties on 14.01.2014. In the meantime, the respondents had formulated a Policy wherein it was stipulated that allotment of industrial plots would be made only pursuant to an e-auction. When the allotment in the case of other similarly situated persons had been made, there was a dispute with regard to the partnership of petitioner, which was resolved only in 2014. This Court, by the order dated 31.01.2024, while referring to the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that it is willing to pay the current price of the plot, had directed the counsel for the respondents to seek instructions as to whether, this offer is acceptable to them. The respondents by way of an affidavit of Vijay Kumar, E.O., HSVP, Panipat dated 04.11.2024 had stated that after the Policy dated 20.09.2016, allotment of industrial plots is to be made only through e-auction, and therefore, the offer cannot be accepted. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any manifest illegality in the impugned orders rejecting the application of the petitioner. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 18.11.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes / No Yes / No SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.11.27 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document