Delhi High Court
Ravi Gupta Partner S.B. Cables vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others on 19 November, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5504/2008
RAVI GUPTA PARTNER S.B.CABLES ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sanjeev Joshi, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 19.11.2009
1. The petitioner had applied for allotment of industrial plot under relocation scheme
on 27th December, 1996.
2. By letter dated 23rd March, 2000, the petitioner was informed that their application
for allotment of an industrial plot under relocation scheme stands rejected as the
petitioner was operating and carrying on business activities from a local commercial
area. In this regard, it may be noted that after directions of the Supreme Court for
closure of industrial units functioning in non-confirming commercial areas, the original
scheme was partly modified in view of large number of applications, which were
received by the respondent, DSIDC for allotment of alternative industrial plots. As a
result of the said modification, it was decided to make allotments under the relocation
scheme to industrial units operating and functioning from non-confirming areas as they
were adversely affected and were in urgent need of alternative industrial plots. The said
W.P.(C) 5504/2008 Page 1
action of the respondent, DSIDC has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in
DSIDC Vs. Naresh Gupta, 2006 (128) DLT 777.
3. After the rejection letter dated 23rd March, 2000, the petitioner himself wrote a
letter, which was received by the respondent, DSIDC on 6 th June, 2000, asking for refund
of the earnest money deposited by them. It is a case of the respondent, DSIDC that the
earnest money was refunded in the year 2000.
4. The petitioner with the writ petition has filed letter dated 1 st January, 2001, written
to the Commissioner of Industries (Relocation Scheme) stating that the policy of the
Government was revised and units located in notified commercial areas were also
eligible for allotment of plots. Thereafter, the petitioner received letter dated 12 th July,
2002 requesting the petitioner to appear before the Appellate Committee along with the
original documents. As per the respondent, DSIDC, the petitioner could not produce any
documents to establish the fact that they were carrying on commercial activity prior to
19th April, 1996 from the area in question. However, the petitioner has placed on record
several documents to establish that they were carrying manufacturing activity prior to
19th April, 1996, in form of sales tax assessment orders, sales tax registration certificate,
registration certificate issued by the MCD and electricity bills. The counter affidavit filed
by the respondent states that there was change in address and there was no evidence to
show that the petitioner was carrying on their manufacturing activity at 9716, Gaushala
Marg, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. Apart from the fact the petitioner was not confronted and put
to notice with the said contention, counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to
the documents filed and has submitted that the petitioner had produced documents in
W.P.(C) 5504/2008 Page 2
respect of 9716, Double Phatak Road, Delhi, which is the same property and is also
known as Goushala Marg, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. He has also drawn my attention to the
registration certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act and the certificate issued by the
MCD in which the said address is mentioned.
5. In these circumstances, I feel that the petitioner's claim should be re-examined by
the respondents as per their policy. It is noticed that Appellate Committee has not
rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that they were located in a notified
commercial area. It is also noticed that the Appellate Committee has not rejected the
appeal of the petitioner on the ground that earnest money deposited by the petitioner
was refunded. Of course, in case as per the policy the petitioner is not entitled to
allotment of alternative industrial plot, no allotment can be made. All aspect will be
examined by the Committee/Commissioner in terms of their policy.
6. The petitioner accordingly will appear before the Commissioner (Industries),
Government of NCT of Delhi on 16th December, 2009 at 2 P.M., when a further date of
hearing will be fixed and the matter will be listed before the competent authority. The
writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NOVEMBER 19, 2009
NA
W.P.(C) 5504/2008 Page 3
