Delhi High Court

P.K. Jain vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 27 August, 2010

Author: Manmohan

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      LPA 615/2010

P.K. JAIN                                 ..... Appellant
                               Through:   Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocate

                      versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
& ORS.                                    ..... Respondents
                   Through:               Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, R-1 and 2.
                                          Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate for
                                          R-3.

                      WITH

+      LPA 618/2010

M/S. PUNEET INDUSTRIES                    ..... Appellant
                  Through:                Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocate

                      versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
& ORS.                                    ..... Respondents
                   Through:               Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, R-1 and 2.
                                          Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate for
                                          R-3.

                      AND

+      LPA 620/2010

S.C. JAIN                                 ..... Appellant
                               Through:   Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocate

                      versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
& ORS.                                    ..... Respondents
                   Through:               Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, R-1 and 2.
                                          Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate for
                                          R-3.


%                                 Date of Decision : 27th August, 2010


LPA Nos. 615, 618 & 620 of 2010                                   Page 1 of 7
 CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?



                                  JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J

CM 15339/2010 in LPA 615/2010 CM 15353/2010 in LPA 618/2010 CM 15368/2010 in LPA 620/2010

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM 15340/2010 in LPA 615/2010 CM 15354/2010 in LPA 618/2010 CM 15369/2010 in LPA 620/2010

These are the applications for condonation of delay in re-filing

the appeals.

For the reasons stated in the applications, delay in re-filing the

appeals is condoned.

Accordingly, applications stand disposed of.

LPA 615/2010 & CM 15338/2010 LPA 618/2010 & CM 15352/2010 LPA 620/2010 & CM 15367/2010

1. The present three Letters Patent Appeals have been filed

challenging a common judgment dated 27th April, 2010 whereby the

learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the three writ petitions

filed by the Appellants. It is pertinent to mention that by way of the

writ petitions, the Appellants-Petitioners had challenged the

cancellation of allotment of industrial plots under the Relocation

Scheme. Since in the present appeals a common judgment has been

challenged, they are also being disposed of by a common judgment and

order.

2. The relevant facts of the present appeals are that the Appellants

claim that they had been running factory units in a non-conforming area

in Delhi. However, in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme

Court directing closure of industries which did not conform to the

Master Plan of Delhi, the factory units of the Appellants were closed.

A scheme was introduced by the Government of NCT of Delhi for

allotment of alternative plots to such industrial units that were

functioning as on 19th April, 1996. Pursuant to the said rehabilitation

scheme, the Appellants were allotted alternative plots by the Delhi State

Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (for short

"DSIDC"). As per the said scheme, all applicants were to immediately

deposit the earnest money/down payment of ` 60,000/- and 50% of the

cost of the plots were to be deposited within three months from the date

of the said allotment. The last date for payment of 50% of the demand

was extended by the Supreme Court upto 31st March, 2001.

3. It is the case of the Appellants that after making payment of

earnest money/down payment, the balance amount constituting 50% of

the cost was to be financed by the respondent no. 4, namely, Delhi

Financial Corporation (for short "DFC"). It is further the case of the

Appellants that they had executed all documents and completed all

formalities with respect to the issuance of loan by DFC.

4. However, since 50% of the cost was not deposited within the

time stipulated by the Supreme Court, the DSIDC cancelled the

allotment of plots made in favour of Appellants. Aggrieved by the said

cancellation, the Appellants filed the writ petitions which have been

dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 27th April, 2010. The

relevant portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"16. If the DFC had closed the loan accounts and therefore did not make remittances to the DSIDC and then no fault can be found with the DSIDC for cancelling allotments. There is nothing unreasonable in the action of the DSIDC in cancelling the Petitioners' allotments on the ground that the 50% of the revised cost was not paid by 31st March, 2001.

17. In the circumstances, this Court is unable to find any ground having been made out by the Petitioners for setting aside the cancellation orders issued by the DSIDC.

18. Whether in fact the Petitioners complied with the stipulations set by the DFC and whether the DFC was justified in closing their loan accounts, are disputed question of facts which cannot possibly be examined in these petitions. It is also beyond the scope of these proceedings. This Court is only called upon to examine whether the DSIDC was justified in cancelling the allotment. In the considered view of this Court, the answer to the question must be in the affirmative.

19. Consequently, there is no merit in any of these writ petitions. They deserve to be dismissed. It is, however, clarified that if any of the Petitioners approaches the DSIDC for being included in the waiting list under the recent policy of the DSIDC then it will be open for them to do so provided they informed the DSIDC within a period of one month from today."

5. Mr. S.K. Lingwal, learned counsel for Appellants submitted that

the Appellants have been crushed between the two government

agencies, namely, DFC and DSIDC. According to him, the Appellants

had executed all the documents and submitted all original documents

with DFC but the DFC did not release the loan due to its own

negligence. Mr. Lingwal further submitted that the DFC had

undertaken to deposit the loan amount directly with the DSIDC, but the

DSIDC has taken the stand that it has not received the payment.

6. It is pertinent to mention that the DSIDC has in the counter-

affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge has taken the stand that

as the Appellants did not make payment of 50% of demanded amount

by 31st March, 2001, their allotments were cancelled in accordance with

the specific direction given by the Supreme Court.

7. The DFC in its counter-affidavit filed before the learned Single

Judge has taken the stand that since the Appellants after repeated advice

failed to submit all documents and comply with all formalities, it could

not sanction the loan to the Appellants and as a consequence of which

money could not be remitted to DSIDC.

8. In our opinion, since admittedly 50% of the cost of plots was not

deposited by 31st March, 2001, the action of DSIDC in cancelling the

allotments cannot be faulted with. In fact, a Division Bench of this

Court in Sunil Dua Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., LPA No.

101/2009 decided on 12th May, 2009 has held that in the event 50% of

the amount was not deposited by 31st March, 2001, DSIDC was bound

to cancel the allotment of plots in accordance with the direction of the

Supreme Court. The relevant observations of the Division Bench in

Sunil Dua (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow:-

"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 12th 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."

9. As far as the action of DFC is concerned, this Court is of the

opinion that in view of the averments made by the DFC in its counter-

affidavit, it is apparent that disputed question of facts arise for

consideration in the present cases. Admittedly, the same cannot be

adjudicated upon in a writ petition.

10. Consequently, leaving open the right of the Appellants to take

action in accordance with the law against the respondents, we reiterate

the direction given by the learned Single Judge that if any of the

Appellants approach DSIDC within one month from today for being

included in the waiting list, then DSIDC would do so and depending

upon the availability of plots after clearance of the waiting list, DSIIDC

would allot plots to the Appellants. With the aforesaid observations,