Delhi High Court
Kishan Singh vs Delhi State Industrial ... on 21 October, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
17.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9141/2007
KISHAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Anil Kumar Oberoi & Mr. Kunal
Rawat, Advocates.
versus
DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate for DSIDC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 21.10.2009
1. The stand taken by respondent-DSIDC is that the petitioner's
industrial unit is located in Nai Basti, Anand Parbhat, an area which is
slated for in situ regularization. Accordingly, it is submitted that the
petitioner is not entitled to alternative allotment of an industrial plot under
the relocation scheme. This aspect was considered by a Division Bench of
this Court in DSIDC versus Naresh Gupta, 128 (2006) DLT 777(DB),
wherein the policy decision not to allow industrial plots under the
relocation scheme to units located in Anand Parbhat, Samaipur Badli and
Shahdara areas, was upheld. It was observed that as per the policy
decision, units located at Anand Parbhat, Samaipur Badli and Shahdara
areas are covered under the redevelopment scheme under the Master Plan
of Delhi 2001 for in situ regularization. Challenge by the owners of
WPC NO.9141/2007 Page 1
industrial units located in areas meant for in situ regularization was
rejected holding that the authorities had not arbitrarily changed the policy
and no vested right in spite of payment received had accrued. It was
observed by the Division Bench as under:-
"12. A perusal of the policy shows that the
policy was not contrary to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was not a scheme for
IN SITU regularization in respect of 24 areas
about which application was made before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The service industries in
the nature of essentials like atta chakkis, dry
cleaners, etc. which are necessary for the service
to the surrounding residential areas has been
allowed to remain in their present locations and
not considered for alternative plot under the
policy. The units which were already located in
commercial areas and were neither hazardous nor
noxious or not emanating pollution only were
allowed to continue in the commercial areas.
13. XXXX
14. XXXX
15. The policy under which respondents have
been denied the possession cannot be branded as
arbitrary or discriminatory. No allegations of
mala fide have been made. The policy is a result
of short supply and huge demand of plots. Since
the administration is faced with a problem that
there were large number of applicants and only
limited number of industrial plots, the above
policy was framed. We consider there was no
arbitrariness or discrimination."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had
made full payment of the alternative plot and some others who were
WPC NO.9141/2007 Page 2
operating industrial units at the said locations have been allotted industrial
plots under the relocation scheme.
3. Respondent-DSIDC in their additional affidavit filed on 10th February,
2009 has explained that process for release of possession of plots
commenced in November, 2001 and at that time there were no specific
guidelines with regard to Samaipur Badli, Anand Parbhat and Shahdara
industrial areas. It is stated that location-wise checks were not made to
ascertain whether a particular unit was within or outside in situ areas and,
therefore, errors and mistakes have been made in some cases. In
paragraph 6 of the additional affidavit, it is pointed out that except in the
case of M/s Vishkarma Jobs, five other industrial units mentioned by the
petitioner fall outside boundary of the industrial area of Anand Parbhat. It
is stated that in the case of M/s Vishkarma Jobs, possession of the plot has
been given inadvertently and by mistake.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the factual averments
made by DSIDC in paragraph 6 of the additional affidavit. I need not
dilate and go deeper into this aspect as the respondents have already
taken a policy decision not to allow industrial plots under relocation
scheme in case an industry is located in an area slated for in situ
regularization at Anand Parbhat, Samaipur Badli or Shahdara areas. The
said policy should be followed uniformly and consistently. However,
mistakes and errors made by the respondents in making allotment
WPC NO.9141/2007 Page 3
contrary to the policy, cannot confer any legal right on the petitioner and
does not entitle the petitioner to invoke Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. A similar contention was also raised before the Division Bench in
the case of Naresh Kumar (supra) and was rejected with the following
observations:-
"20. Another plea raised by the respondents is
that in one case adjoining unit has been given
possession of plot. In the affidavit the appellant
has stated that in that case possession was given
due to inadvertent mistake. We consider that on
this ground respondent/petitioner cannot be
given possession. Two wrongs do not make one
right as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in II (2006) SLT 176=(2006) 2 SCC 604, Kastha
Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit,
Indore v. President, Indore Development
Authority:
8. So far as the allotment of
non-eligible societies is concerned
even if it is accepted, though
specifically denied by the Authority, to
be true that does not confer any right
on the appellant. Two wrongs do not
make one right. A party cannot claim
that since something wrong has been
done in another case direction should
be given for doing another wrong. It
would not be setting a wrong right,
but would be perpetuating another
wrong. In such matters, there is no
discrimination involved. The concept
of equal treatment on the logic of
Article 14 of the Constitution cannot
be pressed into service in such cases.
What the concept of equal treatment
presupposes is existence of similar
legal foothold. It does not
countenance repetition of a wrong
WPC NO.9141/2007 Page 4
action to bring both wrongs on a par.
Even if hypothetically it is accepted
that a wrong has been committed in
some other cases by introducing a
concept of negative equality the
appellant cannot strengthen its case.
It has to establish strength of its case
on some other basis and not by
claiming negative equality (see Union
of India v. International Trading Co.)."
5. The petitioner is accordingly entitled to refund of the amount
deposited by him. The amount will be refunded along with interest @ 9%
per annum from the date the amount was received with option to the
petitioner to permit the respondents to retain earnest money in case he
wants to keep his application for allotment of plot alive and wait for further
availability of plots/property.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order
to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
OCTOBER 21, 2009
VKR
WPC NO.9141/2007 Page 5
