Sunil Dua vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1977 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                   LPA 101/2009 & C.M. No. 3238/2009


        SUNIL DUA                                      ..... Appellant
                          Through:   Mr. J.C. Mahindro, Advocate.

                    versus


        GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.            ..... Respondents
                       Through:  Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Advocate for
                                 Respondent No.1/GNCTD.
                                 Ms. Anusuya Salwan and
                                 Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocates for
                                 Respondent DSIDC.

         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
                       ORDER

% 12.05.2009

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order of the

learned Single Judge dated 13th January, 2009. The narrow factual

matrix of the case is as follows:-

2. The Supreme Court had directed closure of all industries which

did not conform to the Master Plan of Delhi on or before 31st July,

1996. By the same and subsequent orders, the Supreme Court

directed the development of alternative industrial estates by the

respondent, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi,

through its agencies, including Delhi State Industrial Development

Corporation (hereafter called „DSIDC‟). The appellant (original

petitioner in the writ petition) had been engaged in an industrial

activity in a non-confirming area and claimed to be effected by the

order. He applied for allotment of an alternative industrial plot in

Bawana on 30th December, 1996. He was determined provisionally

eligible for allotment of an alternative plot and subsequently informed

about allotment of a plot measuring 100 square meters in Pocket-O,

Sector-1, Bawana Industrial Complex. The appellant claimed to have

complied with procedural requirements and made certain payments.

On 9th November, 2004, DSIDC wrote a letter to the appellant stating

that his request had not been acceded to because he had failed to

deposit 50% of the cost of the plot as on 31st March, 2001. It was

contended by the appellant before the learned Single Judge that the

stand of the DSIDC was untenable because his applications were

constantly being processed and considered on the file of DSIDC even

as late as 2005. The DSIDC, on the other hand, relied upon an order

of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 12th September, 2000. It was

contended that pursuant to the order, the Corporation had fixed a

cut-off date, namely, 31st March, 2001 for deposit of the amount after

giving wide publicity to the same. A copy of the public notice was

also filed by the DSIDC. As per the DSIDC, the appellant had not

deposited the requisite 50% of the cost within the stipulated time,

thus, the DSIDC had no discretion in the matter but to communicate

cancellation of appellant‟s allotment. It was also stated that the time

taken in doing so was because the Corporation was dealing with not

less than 51,000 applications and the task of reviewing such

allotments involved a considerable time and delay.

3. There is no dispute that the Supreme Court‟s order dated 12th

September, 2000, desired that allotment of those who did not make

substantial payment should be cancelled. As per the DSIDC,

according to the directions of the Supreme Court, the draw of plots

was held on 3rd October, 2000 and eligible allottees held successful in

the draw were issued allotment letters. Under the allotment letters,

50% of the demand was to be made immediately on issuance of the

allotment letters. The last date for payment of 50% was extended

upto 31st March, 2001 by press notification. It was also stated on

behalf of the DSIDC that by a public notice dated 21st January, 2001,

published in „Times of India‟, allottees were informed that the

Supreme Court of India in its hearing dated 24th January, 2001, had

extended time for receipt of 100% payment in the case of allottees at

Narela, Badli, Jhilmil and Patparganj as well as 50% payment in case

of Bawana upto 31st March, 2001. A number of allottees did not

deposit 50% payment within the stipulated time, however, keeping in

view the hardship faced by the allottees, it was decided by the DSIDC

that all those allottees who did not make the first 50% payment on

time would be given an option to withdraw their amounts deposited

and keep only the security deposit amounts with the Corporation and

DSIDC would maintain a separate list of these allottees and their

cases may be considered after new land was acquired and developed

and after complying with the Supreme Court‟s order for exhausting

the pending allottees. A copy of the notice dated 26th August, 2001 is

annexed at page 109 of the paper book, a copy of the public notice

dated 26th January, 2001 published in the newspaper is annexed at

page 121 of the paper book and a copy of the order dated 12 th

January, 2000 passed by the Supreme Court is annexed at page 101

of the paper book.

4. It is thus clear that the intimation pursuant to the Supreme

Court‟s orders was published in the newspaper informing the

allottees of the cut-off date of 31st March, 2001. Despite this,

admittedly, the appellant did not make the stipulated payment as

required by the orders of the Supreme Court and the public notice of

26.01. 2001. Thus the allotment was liable to be cancelled in terms

of the orders of the Supreme Court and the public notice.

5. The DSIDC has also filed an additional affidavit in the present

appeal, wherein it is stated that there are about 30 allottees who did

not pay the initial 50% cost within the scheduled time but have

deposited 100% cost later on. The appellant is one of them. The

DSIDC also fairly stated that in terms of its public notice dated 26th

August, 2001, the case of the appellant would be maintained in the

separate list with other similarly placed allottees who would be

considered in future after new land is acquired and developed and

after complying with the Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s orders for

exhausting the pending allottees.

6. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that pursuant to the

Supreme Court‟s order dated 12th September, 2000, DSIDC

formulated a policy which would give wide publicity in the press

stating that those who did not deposit 50% of the cost on or before

31st March, 2001 would incur the risk of cancellation of their

allotment and the appellant was not unaware of this position and

thus was clearly ineligible for allotment as he had failed to make the

payment by 31st March, 2001.

7. We are in agreement with the conclusion reached by the

learned Single Judge that the grounds urged by the appellant do not

justify interference with the decision of the DSIDC as the appellant

has not made out a case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant has not

challenged the policy but has contended that notwithstanding the

policy, the DSIDC took long time in processing his case and

indicating his ineligibility. This cannot be a ground for interference

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, this case is

also covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in

"Dinesh Lalwani vs. DSIDC", LPA No. 48 of 2008 decided on 1st

February, 2008, wherein it was held that since the appellant in that

case had not deposited the required amount of 50% by the cut-off

date, no equity could be shown to him and the writ petition had been

rightly dismissed. The learned Single Judge‟s order in that case

dismissing the writ petition was upheld as cogent and justified and it

was stated that if the mandate of the allotment letter was not

followed and the stipulations under the public notice are not adhered

to, there was no other alternative for the respondent DSIDC but to

cancel the allotment of the plot.

8. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we find no

infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge to warrant any

interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The pending

applications also stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 12, 2009 Sb/RS