$~38 & 39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
38+ W.P.(C) 6695/2011
M/S ANUSH FINLEASE AND CONSTRTUCTION
PVT. LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv.
Versus
DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Mr. Lokesh
Sharma, Advocates with Mr. Dinesh
Jindal, L.O., DPCC.
AND
39+ W.P.(C) 6696/2011
M/S TIRUPATI INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv.
Versus
DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Mr. Lokesh
Sharma, Advocates with Mr. Dinesh
Jindal, L.O., DPCC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 15.09.2011
1. The petitioner in each case, seeks refund of the amount deposited with the respondent and the bank guarantees furnished to the respondent (which have not been involved and the term whereof has expired) in 1/3 pursuance to the orders of the respondent requiring the same as a condition for grant of "consent to establish" to the petitioner. Similar orders of the respondent were subject matter of challenge in Splendor Landbase Ltd. Vs. DPCC 173 (2010) DLT 52 and were struck down. Subsequently, the same issued was raised in W.P.(C) No.465/2011 and W.P.(C) No.1041/2011 decided by the judgment dated 12th July, 2011 in which direction for refund and for return of bank guarantees was also made. The controversy in the present petitions is admittedly the same as dealt with in the judgment dated 12th July, 2011 (supra).
2. The counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice informs that the intra court appeals against all the judgments have been admitted. It is also stated that in intra court appeal against the judgment dated 12 th July, 2011, notice of the application for stay has been issued.
3. The counsel for the respondent states that the notice of the present petitions be issued and counter affidavit be permitted to be filed and by the time these petitions become ripe for hearing, the intra court appeals aforesaid are likely to be disposed of and these petitions can then be dealt in accordance with the judgment in appeal.
2/3
4. I am however not inclined to adopt the course of action suggested. As stated in judgment dated 12th July, 2011 also, it is deemed expedient that the controversy as raised in all matters be considered by the Division Bench from all facets rather than keeping these petitions pending before this Bench.
5. The petitions are accordingly allowed in terms of the judgments aforesaid. The respondent is directed to within eight weeks of today, return the bank guarantees and to refund the amount of `8 lacs in W.P.(C) No.6695/2011 and `24 lacs in W.P.(C) No.6696/2011 to the petitioner, failing which the same shall incur interest at the rate of 10% per annum till the date of payment besides other remedies of the petitioner.
The matters having been disposed of on the very first date, no order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 bs..
3/3