RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 27.07.2012 (P-15) issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority calling applications for allotment of a plot in Sector-8, Urban Estate, Jind, Haryana on lease hold basis for 99 years for social and charitable purposes. The last date of receipt of applications complete in all respects was fixed for 14.08.2012.

2. The petitioner's case is that the site advertised under the impugned public notice (P-15) was earlier reserved for Temple-cumDharamshala and has been allotted to the petitioner-Trust in the proceedings of the meeting held on 26.08.2009 under the Chairmanship of Administrator, HUDA, Hisar with respect to allotment of religious/social/charitable sites in Urban Estate, Jind. The petitioner proposed to construct a Mandir of Lord Krishana and a Dharamshala on the site. The proceedings however did not culminate in an offer of allotment or drawing of a conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner-Trust. Thereafter, it appears that a second meeting was held on 25.10.2010 for consideration of cases for allotment again inter alia of the site in question in Sector-8. It is averred that in this meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, a recommendation was made to allot the plot to the petitioner which was one amongst two competing applicants the other being the Yadav Sabha (Regd.) Jind who chose not to appear at the interview fixed for the purpose of allotment. The allotment of the site in question, however did not attain finality consequent upon this meeting dated 25.10.2010.

3. It is then alleged by the petitioner that respondent No.5 – Sh. Chhatar Singh, Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, Haryana and respondent No.6 – Smt. Shakuntala Khatak wife of Sh. Attar Singh, MLA Kalanaur and resident of Rohtak belong to the “Dhanak Community” and misused their clout and influence to get the matter of allotment re-examined by managing to get a fresh meeting fixed for the purpose in respect of allotment of the sites in Sector-8 and Sector-11, Urban Estate, Jind and this meeting was fixed for 01.06.2011. In this meeting held on 01.06.2011 the Sector-8 site was allotted to Central Jaycees Educational & Charitable Trust (Regd.), Jind which is alleged to have not even applied for the particular site. The entire issue is said to have been reconsidered at the meeting held on 23.11.2011 under the Chairmanship of Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar. A decision was taken to convert the Temple-cum-Dharamshala category to Social and Charitable category. In a reconvened meeting held on 14.07.2012 the Dhanak Samaj Sevak Singh (Regd.) Jind was allotted site in Sector-8. The change of use was effected by conversion of the religious and charitable sites' to 'social and charitable sites'. In the meeting held on 14.07.2012 a recommendation was made to change user of land as aforestated. Ultimately, the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula decided that site in Sector-8, Jind may be re-floated after conversion of the same to Social/Charitable building site. The proposal was sent to the Chief Town Planner, HUDA, Panchkula. It is after these deliberations, a final decision was taken and the impugned advertisement (P-15) was issued.

4. We have heard Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, learned Senior counsel with Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Advocate appearing for the petitioner at considerable length. The bedrock of his argument is based on allegations of mala fides against the 5 th and 6 th respondents that under their influence the site earlier earmarked for Temple-cum-Dharmshala has been converted to Social and Charitable sites with a view to oust the petitioner-Trust for allotment for which earlier recommendations had been made in their favour. He submits that the entire proceedings had been manipulated to accommodate Dhanak Samaj Sewak Sangh (Regd.), Jind even though they had not applied earlier. It is contended that it appears to be a foregone conclusion that the site now advertised through the impugned advertisement would be offered to the Dhanak Samaj Sewak Sangh (Regd.), Jind. Still further, learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner-Trust has been excluded altogether from right of consideration by change of user of land induced by bureaucratic and political influence yielded by the 5 th and 6 th respondents. He also submits that the proceedings of the meeting dated 23.11.2011 were held under compulsion of a precursor telephonic command or fiat of the Administrator (HQ) HUDA issued on 14.11.2011 which alone proves mala fides and that this Court should go into the issue. He would insist that whenever mala fides are alleged against the Government or its senior functionary, a petition should not be dismissed in limine without calling upon the respondents to file a return. And where serious allegations of improper motive and mala fides are alleged against a senior member of the Indian Administrative Service or against other senior officers of the State Government dismissal of the petition in limine would not be justified. In support, he cites two judgments of the Supreme Court in D.D. Suri vs. A.K. Barren and others, AIR 1971 SC 175 [LQ/SC/1970/437] and Gyan Chand and others vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1971 SC 333 [LQ/SC/1970/329] .

5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel but do not find any substance in the same. Merely because the 5 th respondent happens to be a Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, Haryana, we cannot read any malignant hand behind the proceedings taken by competent authorities leading to the change of land use and inviting applications from the public through the impugned advertisement by expanding the scope of public purpose. In any case, it is premature to debate what the result of the advertisement (P-15) would be. We also do not find any indication in the writ petition that there was any oblique purpose in shifting the site from Temple-cum-Dharmshala to one of Social and Charitable building sites. A person engaged in proposing to create a Temple-cum-Dharamshala could well fall in the category of social and charitable building site. There appears to be no exclusion of the petitioner-Trust from consideration under the advertisement (P-15). It may serve larger public interest if the site in question in Sector-8, Jind is enlarged to accommodate the competing interests of a larger number of aspirants qualifying for allotment. It may be easy to allege mala fides and make that a ground for admission of the matter but we find no material on record which may excite us to enter upon the issue and make a roving inquiry in the matter even before the allotments are actually made. Conversion of use of sites for purposes of allotment of public land, or enlarging its sphere is a matter of policy not to be lightly interfered with unless the decision is palpably arbitrary, contrary to statute or unreasonable bordering on perversity. The averments in the petition as pointed out do not establish malus animus with respect to the 5th and 6th respondents.

6. We see no merit in this petition and dismiss it with Rs.5000/- as costs. Costs are directed be deposited in the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh.