M/S Maruti Packers vs Govt. Of N.C.T. & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1564 Del

3
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                      Decided on: 21.04.2009

+                        W.P. (C) 12920/2004


      M/S MARUTI PACKERS                                               ..... Petitioner

                         Through: Mr. Mukesh Anand, Advocate.

                  versus


      GOVT. OF N.C.T. & ORS.                               ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)

% The petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to handover a

possession of the plot in Village Bawana being No.2/D/21. It is claimed that

the plot was allotted to it sometime in 1998.

2. The petitioner was, like several others industrial concerns or

manufacturing units, who were carrying on his activities in non-conforming

zones, directed to cease operations and close the Unit by 31.12.1996

pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court. As a part of the Scheme

evolved by the respondent agency, Units were eligible for consideration for

re-allocation of their Units in industrial areas to be subsequently developed.

The petitioner applied for one such plot under the Scheme. It is contended

that the application was for a 400 sq. mtr. Plot. The second respondent

informed to the petitioner on 3.4.1998 that it could be allotted 250 sq. mtr.,

and demanded Rs.94,500/- over and above the initial earnest money deposit

of Rs.1,20,000/-, which the petitioner claims to have deposited on 4.6.1998.

It is contended that despite having complied with the respondent's demands,

the latter are not taking any follow up action towards handing over of the

property. This inaction, it is submitted, is arbitrary and un-reasonable. It is

further claimed that on 25.7.2004 the respondents showed the petitioner to

be eligible in the list of re-allocated industrialists updated as on that date.

For these reasons, the petitioner claims that inaction of the respondents is

unreasonable and arbitrary.

3. The respondent No.2 - DSIDC in its counter affidavit does not deny that

the petitioner was in fact allotted the plot as claimed. However, it contends

that the petitioner deposited Rs.2,24,024/- which was less than 50% of the

total amount required to be paid, as a result of which the possession of the

plot could not be given to it. The respondent further state interestingly in its

counter affidavit that a policy decision regarding giving possession of

alternate plots to owners of those units which existed in Samaipur Badli is

still pending with the office of Commissioner of Industries of which

Respondent No.2 is the implementing agency.

4. It is further averred that though the petitioner has not yet been

officially declared ineligible by the Respondent Corporation due to non-

compliance with the schedule of payment, possession has not been given to

the petitioner due to non-payment of 50% of the total amount to be paid

against the cost of the plot and also because of the unit of the petitioner

being in Samaipur Badli which has been earmarked for re-development

scheme under the Master Plan - 2001 and a final decision in this respect is

pending with Respondent No.1.

5. The above discussion would show that on the essential facts with

regard to the closure of the petitioner's Unit, its application for an alternative

plot, payment of Rs.2,24,024/- and allotment made, there is no dispute. The

DSIDC does not join issue with the petitioner's averments. Even though the

payment of 50% amount deemed essential as on 31.3.2001 was not satisfied

in this case, it has not yet determined the petitioner to be ineligible for

possession. Apparently it is awaiting a further policy decision because the

Samaipur Badli was earmarked for re-development.

6. In view of the above, it is apparent that the respondents are not

completely denying the petitioner's case. The fact, however, remains that

according to its policy, the allottee had to deposit 50% of the amount before

a stipulated date i.e. 31.3.2001. However, for the reasons best known to it,

the respondent is not treating the matter as closed because of some gap in

its decision making; it has linked the petitioner's case with some re-

development plans for Samaipur Badli. In the circumstances, the Court is of

opinion that even while not granting the petitioner the directions sought, the

respondents should indicate their final thinking in the matter and pass an

appropriate orders, communicating whether or not the petitioner would be

entitled to possession and if so for what reasons. The said exercise shall be

completed and the order/letter communicated to the petitioner within three

months from today.

7. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Order dasti to the parties.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) APRIL 21, 2009 /vd/