Vibro Electronics vs Lt. Governor Of Govt. Of Nct Of ...
2008 Latest Caselaw 168 Del

JUDGMENT

Gita Mittal, J.

1. The petitioner in the writ petition was allotted the plot No. S-98, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi by allotment letter dated 10th July, 1986. Inasmuch as the petitioner failed to make the unit functional in terms of the letter of allotment, the respondents were constrained to issue a notice of show cause dated 18th August, 1998. The petitioner's reply did not find favor with the respondent, who proceeded to pass an order dated 13th March, 2000 terminating the allotment in favor of the petitioner and directing the Lesser to determine the lease hold rights of the petitioner, also forfeiting the premises and directing re-entry of the premises. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed the statutory appeal before the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on 11th April, 2000. By an order passed on 24th May, 2001 the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to accept the above subject to payment of restoration charges by the petitioner. The Lieutenant Governor also directed that the petitioner should undertake the new construction to the full permissible extension and generate adequate manufacturing activities at the site within the next one year failing which the lease shall have to be determined again. The order of the Lieutenant Governor was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 28th June, 2001 wherein the demand of Rs. 5,18,112/- towards restoration charges was made.

2. The petitioner failed to deposit the amount as demanded resulting in issuance of reminder dated 3rd September, 2001. The petitioner objected to the demand made by the respondents. On the 5th of October, 2001 the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 1 lakh only under protest and sought the break up of the demanded amount. At the same time the petitioner assailed the demand by way of the present writ petition.

3. As the petitioner failed to deposit the demanded amount, the respondents repeatedly required the petitioner to pay the amount failing which the petitioner would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Reminders in this behalf were issued to the petitioner inter alia on 22nd January, 2002. Finally by a letter dated 20th June, 2002, the petitioner was informed that he would be liable to pay interest on the demanded amount at the rate of 18% which, till 27th June, 2002, worked out to an amount of Rs. 79,760/-. The petitioner was also notified that upon failure to pay this demanded amount within the next 10 days, the restoration offer shall stand withdrawn and eviction proceedings Along with the disconnection of electricity and water would be initiated. Aggrieved by this communication, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the demand of the amounts from him.

4. The respondents have contested the writ petition. Details of the break up of the amount demanded from the petitioner have also been placed before the court. The original record relating to the plot of the petitioner and the consideration of the petitioner's appeal before the Lieutenant Governor and the order dated 24th May, 2001 passed thereon has also been placed before the court which has been perused.

5. There is no dispute to the factual objections taken by the respondents so far as non-compliance of the allotment letter dated 10th July, 1986 is concerned. The petitioner not only failed to raise construction, but also did not conduct any manufacturing activity on the industrial plot which was allotted to him. The same was totally opposed to the spirit, intendment and purpose of the allotment. It was in this background, that the order terminating the lease and directing re-entry on the subject property was passed. The Lieutenant Governor had considered the matter and the order dated 24th May, 2001 was passed. The restoration of the lease was directed strictly subject to the condition that the petitioner pay the charges which have been computed and found payable by the petitioner. The charges which have been demanded by the petitioner are to include the following:

Market rate fixed Unearned increase for the year 2001-2002 Rs. 8,064/- 25% of which come to Rs. 2016/- per sq. mtrs. Area of which plot 307 sq.Yds.-256.68 or say 257 sq. mtrs. Amount payable 2016 x 257 Rs. 5,18,112/-.

6. It is well settled, that administrative decisions can be tested only on the touchstone of arbitrariness, illegality, unreasonableness, irrationality or violations of principles of natural justice. There is no such grievance in the instant case. The orders which have been passed are reasoned and have taken the factual matrix in the consideration. No irrelevant material has been considered by the authorities while passing the orders. In this view of the matter the challenge made by the petitioner to the demand which has been imposed upon him is legally untenable and is misconceived. The same is hereby rejected. As a result of the above the petitioner is liable to pay the amounts which have been demanded by the respondents. The same include a demand of Rs. 5,18,112/- towards the restoration charges and the amount of Rs. 79,760/- on account of interest up to 27th June, 2002.

7. In view of the above, the challenge to the order, communicated to him by the letter dated 28th June, 2001 to the extent that it directs the petitioner to pay restoration charges of Rs. 5,18,112/- by this petition is misconceived and is hereby rejected.

8. At this stage learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 5th October, 2001, the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 1 lakh with the respondent under protest. It is further submitted that pursuant to orders dated 1st July, 2002 passed by this court, the petitioner has also deposited a further amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs with the respondent. In this view of the matter, only a balance of Rs. 2,68,112/- remains due and payable by the petitioner. It is requested, that the petitioner may be permitted to deposit this amount in Installments. This prayer is accepted. The petitioner is permitted to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,68,112/- by five Installments. The first Installment of Rs. 68,112/- shall be deposited by the petitioner on or before the 29th February, 2008. The balance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs will be deposited by way of four monthly equated Installments of Rs. 50000/- each which shall be payable on or before the 15th day of each succeeding calender month commencing from 15th March, 2008.

9. The petitioner's grievance in the repeated communications to the respondents, were that he had repeatedly sought a break up of the demand which was raised upon him. From the record, I find that the respondents failed to include the break up of the demand. It has also been urged that the interest at the rate of 18% per annum is grossly exorbitant and that even the market rate of interest is much below the demanded rate. In view of these circumstances, there is substance in the petitioner's grievance. It is held that the demand of interest at the rate of 18% is unreasonable and not justified. Interests of justice would be met if the petitioner is required to pay interest at the rate of 6% on the demanded amount with effect from 28th June, 2001 till today. The respondent shall communicate the calculation so far as the interest component is concerned on this basis to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today. The same shall be paid as the 6th Installment to the respondents by the petitioner on the same terms as the other Installments.

This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.