Galtex Industries vs State & Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 3919 Del

8
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 367/2008

      GALTEX INDUSTRIES             ..... Petitioner
                      Through Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Mr. Imran Khan
                      and Ms. Nandini Aggarwal, Advocates.

                    versus

      STATE & ORS.                 ..... Respondent
                           Through Mr. Vivek Kr. Tandon with Mr. Manish
                           Chouhan Advocates with Mr. Pradeep Gupta, DCI
                           for Respondent Industries.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA


              ORDER

% 23.09.2009

Cost of Rs.5,000/- has been paid to the counsel for the petitioner.

2. Heard. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is

taken up for final disposal.

3. The petitioner M/s Galtex Industries had applied for allotment of

alternative Industrial Plot under re-allocation scheme by depositing

Rs.1,20,000/- on 24.12.1996.

4. On 6th April, 2000 the petitioner was informed that the application

was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was carrying on category H

(a) industrial activity under the Master Plan Delhi 2001 and therefore was WPC NO.367/2008 Page 1 not eligible for allotment of alternative plot.

5. The petitioner filed an application seeking review. The petitioner

submitted that he was not carrying on Category H (a) activity, but was

engaged in manufacture of footwear which was/is a green activity, as per

the list published in the Gazette of India dated 21st December, 1999.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard relies upon item numbers

51 and 55 of the said list. It is the case of the petitioner that he made

representations in 2004 and 2007 but did not get favourable response form

the respondents.

6. The petitioner has also obtained copy of the file notings under the

Right to Information Act, 2005. File noting reveal that after the initial

decision, the case of the petitioner has not been re-examined afresh in the

light of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The representations have

been rejected on the ground that the petitioner belongs to category H (a)

as held earlier. The respondents have not been examined whether the

petitioner was in green category as per the list prepared by Delhi Pollution

Control Committee.

7. The respondents have failed to file response/reply to the present

petition.

8. During the course of hearing, it is stated by the counsel for the

WPC NO.367/2008 Page 2 respondents that they shall re-examine the claim of the petitioner to decide

whether the petitioner falls in green category or was engaged in category H

(a) activities under the Master Plan, 2001. The petitioner will accordingly

appear before the Appellate Committee on 20th October, 2009 at 2.30 P.M.

along with relevant papers. The petitioner will produce original documents

before the appellate committee in support of his stand.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Dasti to the Counsel for the respondent.

                                                          SANJIV KHANNA,J
SEPTEMBER 23, 2009
HL




      WPC NO.367/2008                                                 Page 3