The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in CWP No. 12959 of 2011 and 12 connected writ petitions, decided on 20.02.2025, dismissed all 13 petitions challenging the decision of the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation (PSIEC) to withdraw an advertisement for allotment of industrial plots at Phase 8-B, SAS Nagar (Mohali). The petitioners had applied for plots pursuant to the advertisement but PSIEC subsequently withdrew it by Resolution No. 288.11.
Background
PSIEC had issued an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of industrial plots at its industrial area in Phase 8-B, Mohali. Several applicants submitted their applications along with the requisite fees. However, before the allotment process could be completed, PSIEC passed Resolution No. 288.11, withdrawing the advertisement altogether. The applicants filed writ petitions before the High Court contending that the withdrawal was arbitrary and that they had acquired a vested right to be considered for allotment.
The Court’s Analysis
The High Court examined whether the petitioners had any vested or enforceable right to allotment merely by virtue of having submitted applications pursuant to the advertisement. The Court held that an advertisement inviting applications is merely an invitation to treat, not an offer capable of creating binding obligations. The submission of an application in response to such an advertisement does not, by itself, create a vested right in the applicant to demand that the allotment process be carried to completion. PSIEC, as the allotting authority, retained the discretion to withdraw the advertisement for valid administrative reasons.
Key Principles
The judgment reaffirms the distinction between an invitation to treat and an offer in the context of government allotment schemes. A public body inviting applications for allotment of plots or properties retains the administrative discretion to withdraw or modify the scheme at any stage prior to a concluded allotment. Applicants do not acquire enforceable rights merely by applying, unless the scheme itself provides otherwise.
Significance
The decision is of significance for public sector undertakings involved in industrial plot allotments. It clarifies that the withdrawal of an advertisement, even after receipt of applications, is a permissible exercise of administrative discretion, provided it is not motivated by mala fides. The Court found no mala fide intent in PSIEC’s decision to withdraw the advertisement.
The Order
All 13 writ petitions were dismissed.
Mrs. Munisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate, appeared for the Respondent, i.e., PSIEC, assisted by Ms. Sachit Katoch, Mr. Vikas Chatrath, and Mr. Preet Agroa, Advocates.