Mr. V.K. Nayyar And Sons vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi
2008 Latest Caselaw 194 Del

JUDGMENT

Gita Mittal, J.

1. By this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the rejection of his application for allotment of an industrial plot under the relocation scheme of industrial units running in residential/non-conforming areas. The petitioner has contended that he was running a repairing of safes, vaults, furniture etc unit under the name and style of M/s V.K. Nayyar and Sons since prior to the year 1991-1992 at 1, G.T. Karnal Road, Industrial Area, Opposite Lane, Punjab National Bank, Gujrawalan Town, Delhi-110033 which unit was located in a nonconforming area.

2. In view of the orders passed by the Apex Court, such industries running in non-conforming areas were eligible for allotment of industrial plots under the relocation scheme upon submission of the documentary proof to establish that the unit was running prior to 19th April, 1996, which was the date of the order of the Apex Court. The applicant was required to furnish any one of the several documents prescribed by the respondents which included a Municipal Corporation License (renewed up to 31st March, 1995), permanent SSI registration, sales tax registration, excise registration of manufacturing, registration under Factories Act, challans issued by the DDA, MCD or Delhi Vidyut Board within the last five years for running the industry; income tax returns of the industry.

3. The petitioner submitted an application for allotment of an industrial plot enclosing therewith documents reflecting purchase of machinery and income tax returns commencing from the period 1991 till 1996.

4. It has been pointed out that the respondents effected a scrutiny of the application wherein it was noted that so far as the power connection was concerned there was installation of a domestic connection at the petitioner's premises.

5. The petitioner has submitted, that he had appeared before the concerned officer on 18th August, 1998 and reaffirmed the claim and placed the aforenoticed documents. It has been submitted that rent receipts with regard to the premises were also placed before the officers. However, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there was no government document to establish manufacturing activity prior to 19th April, 1996 and that the unit?appeared? to be located in a conforming area. The amount of Rs. 30000/- deposited by the petitioner was returned after five years to the petitioner on the 24th March, 2002.

6. The petitioner assailed the action of the respondents in a review petition. The review petition of the petitioner was rejected for the same reason as above on 25th August, 2002. The petitioner thereafter approached the consumer forum for redressal. However, for the reason that no allotment has been made to the petitioner, he was held to be not covered within the definition of the expression 'consumer' by the district consumer forum. The order dated 16th May, 2002 of the district consumer forum was upheld by the State Commission as well as the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission by its order dated 27th October, 2002.

7. The present writ petition has been filed thereafter pointing out that the respondents have failed to consider the material documents which were placed by the petitioner before them for consideration and a mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to make allotment of an industrial plot to the petitioner under the relocation scheme of the industries.

8. The writ petition has been opposed on the same grounds on which the orders were passed rejecting the application of the petitioner.

9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. I find that the eligibility criteria notified by the respondents required the applicant under the relocation scheme to furnish any one of the documents for establishing that the unit existed prior to 19th April, 1996 which included income tax returns. The petitioner has placed copies of the returns which were filed before the respondents which date from the period 1991 till 1996 to manifest and evidence the existence of the industry prior to 19th April, 1996.

10. So far as the objection that the premises of the petitioner appeared to be located in a conforming area is concerned, it has been pointed out that this submission on behalf of the respondents is a mere conjecture. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, merely because the address of the petitioner reflects as if it is located in an industrial area would not establish that the petitioner's user of the premises or its nature was not non-conforming. My attention has been drawn to an affidavit dated April, 2004 which has been deposed by Mr. H.L. Malik, Joint Director of Industries of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, CPO Building, Kashmere Gate 110006 in reply to the Review Petition filed by the petitioner bearing No. 1604/2002 entitled V.K. Nayyar and Sons v. Commissioner of Industries before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, wherein, the deponent has stated that the unit of the complainant Shri V.K. Nayyar at 1, G.T. Karnal Road, Industrial Area, Opposite Lane, Punjab National Bank, Gujrawalan Town, Delhi-110033 comes within the non-conforming area. It is further stated that, however G.T. Karnal Road Industrial Area is conforming industrial area. This deposition clearly supports the submissions of the petitioner.

11. I also find that even the Committee of officers scrutining the petitioner's application had noted that the unit 'appears' to be located in a conforming area. It is therefore evident, that the Committee has also based its finding on a presumption drawn in view of the description of the address of the petitioner. On the other hand, the deposition of the Joint Director of the respondents before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission clearly shows that the unit of the petitioner was being run in a non-conforming area.

12. The petitioner has been agitating his claim before the respondents and also by way of a complaint before the Consumer Redressal Forum. From the above, it is evident that the application of the petitioner has been rejected without considering the documents placed by the petitioner before the authorities and is based on sheer surmises and conjectures which is unreasonable, irrational and unfair. The rejection of the petitioners application is therefore set aside and quashed.

13. As a consequence, the petitioners is entitled to a fresh consideration of the application submitted by him for allotment of the industrial plot in terms of the relocation scheme notified by the respondents.

A direction is therefore issued to the Commissioner of Industries and the Government of NCT of Delhi to cause a fresh consideration of the application of the petitioner. In case of any deficiency or objection thereto, the same may be communicated in writing to the petitioner within three weeks of the receipt of the order passed by this court. The petitioner may be given an opportunity to remove all deficiencies and to make a personal representation in support of his application. The petitioner shall also be notified of the date and time of such meeting. The respondents shall ensure service of the orders which are passed on the petitioner's application upon him, which orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any case not later than eight weeks from the receipt of the orders of this court.

In case the application of the petitioner finds favor with the respondents, subject to the petitioners depositing all charges in terms of the relocation scheme of the respondents and completing all formalities, possession shall be handed over to the petitioner at the earliest.

In case the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents, he shall be at liberty to assail the same by way of appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.