M/S. Ram Dhan Vaishno Prakash & ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Etc.
2010 Latest Caselaw 901 Del

22
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 8775/2008

      M/S RAM DHAN VAISHNO PRAKASH & SONS ..... Petitioner
                     Through Mr. Anuj Soni, advocate.

                   versus


      GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ETC.   ..... Respondent
                     Through Mr. Rajiv Bansal, advocate for DDA.
                     Mr.Rajiv Nanda, advocate for R-1.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                   ORDER

% 16.02.2010

It is stated that the petitioner has deposited Rs.20,000/- in this Court, in compliance with the judgment of this Court, vide receipt dated 28th September, 2001 and therefore the respondents were wrong in not examining and considering the case for allotment of plot at Holombi Kalan. It is stated that other chemical traders have been allotted plots at Holombi Kalan.

Respondents in the counter affidavit have stated that a committee consisting of Divisional Commissioner as Chairman, and members from DDA, Sales Tax, D.C.P. (Licensing), Chief Controller of Explosive, Chief Fire Officer, and Commissioner (Planning)/DDA was constituted to examine allotment of plots to traders who were carrying on trade in non-pharmaceutical chemical based products at Tilak Nagar, Delhi. The Committee constituted four teams under the supervision of S.D.M. Kotwali, S.D.M. (HQ), North District, S.D.M. Paharganj and S.D.M. Parliament Street to verify the traders who were eligible. 883 chemical dealers were found to be eligible as per the list prepared on 31st March, 2000. The name of the petitioner does not figure in the said list. It is stated that 226 traders were found ineligible and not entitled to allotment of plots.

WPC No.8775/2008 Page 1 The petitioner belatedly, after delay of more than eight years has approached this Court now in December 2008 and has made a claim for allotment of a plot. There is no explanation for this delay in approaching the Court. Due to time gap it is impossible to verify genuineness of the claim of the petitioner that he was dealing in non- pharmaceutical chemical products in the year 2000-2001. The petitioner in the writ petition has not filed any document in support of his contention that he was dealing with non-pharmaceutical chemical products in the year 2000-2001 except Sales Tax Registration Certificate. The said certificate does not establish and prove that the petitioner was in fact carrying on trade in non-pharmaceutical chemical products in 2000-2001 Sales Tax Registration is for several commodities. Allotting a plot or issuing directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, is not justified and will result in the petitioner trying to take advantage of the inflation/increase in prices.

Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No Costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

      FEBRUARY 16, 2010
      P




WPC No.8775/2008                                                       Page 2