Paradise Engineering Works vs D.S.I.I.D.C.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1937 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 818/2010


      PARADISE ENGINEERING WORKS             ..... Appellant
                   Through Mr.H.C.Mittal, Advocate.

                     versus

      D.S.I.I.D.C.                        ..... Respondent
                          Through Ms. Ansuya Salwan, Advocate.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA


                               ORDER

%                             04.04.2011

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

      Delhi     State    Industrial   Infrastructure   Development

Corporation Ltd., (Respondent for short) has produced original

file before us. We have examined the file and on the basis of

the material on the file, we are disposing of the present appeal.

2. The appellant, Surender Dutt Gaur, sole proprietor of

Paradise Engineering Works, claims that he was running a

manufacturing unit at G-15, Rampura, Delhi. By application N.

37074, he had applied for alternative industrial plot at Bawana

by depositing Rs.1,20,000/-. This fact is admitted by the

respondent. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant

was allotted alternative industrial plot measuring 250 sq. mtrs. at

Bawana Industrial Complex and allotment-cum-eligibility letter

dated 8th December, 2001 was issued. The appellant does not

dispute this letter. Thus, the appellant admits that he was aware

and had knowledge that an industrial plot measuring 250 sq.

mtrs. was allotted to him in 2001.

3. In paragraph 3(d) of the writ petition, the appellant had

stated as under:-

"d) That during the period 2006-2007 the petitioner came to know from the website of the DSIDC that Plot No. 19, Pocket-G, Sector-2, Bawana measuring 250 sq. mts. has been allotted by the DSIIDC to the petitioner. But no such Allotment Letter from DSIIDC was received by the petitioner. However, after waiting for Allotment Letter for some time, the petitioner visited DSIIDC office a number of times to ascertain the status of allotment so that the petitioner could make the balance payment. The officials of DSIIDC told that the petitioner's unit falls under the Local Commercial Unit; some changes are going to be made regarding the policy matter of local commercial units and the petitioner will be intimated about the change in the near future and that there were so many cases like the petitioner which were to be decided/affected."

4. The aforesaid paragraph shows that the appellant came to

know about allotment of plot No. 19, Pocket G, Sector 2,

Bawana, but claims that he did not receive the allotment letter.

It is pleaded that the officials of the respondent had informed

him that the appellant's unit was under the Local commercial

unit and policy changes would be intimated.

5. Original file produced by the respondent before us shows

that the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 21st July, 2006 was

issued in the name of the appellant and was sent by registered

post, certificate of posting and ordinary post at GF-15, Rampura,

Delhi 35. The said address is mentioned on the application form

and other documents which were filed by the appellant with the

allotment application. The same address is also mentioned in

the memo of parties to the appeal. The letter sent by registered

post was received back un-delivered but the other letters which

were sent under the certificate of posting and by ordinary post

were not received back. The report of the postal authorities

returning back the registered envelope states; "no such number

on this address; return to sender for complete address".

6. In view of the aforesaid position including the pleadings in

the writ petition itself, it is not possible to accept the contention

of the appellant that he was not aware of the allotment made in

2006. It is also not possible to accept the contention that inspite

of visiting the office of the respondent, he was not aware and did

not have knowledge about the allotment. The allotment letter

dated 21st July, 2006, required the appellant to pay the balance

amount calculated @ Rs.4200/- per sq. mtr. after adjustment of

the money already deposited and interest accrued thereon. The

deposit was to be made within 60 days of issue of demand-cum-

allotment letter. Payment could be made within 45 days

thereafter, subject to payment of interest @ 18% p.a. but no

further extension was to be granted. In case of non-payment, the

allotment of plot was to be cancelled.

7. Respondent has also produced before us public notices in

form of advertisements published in newspapers calling upon

the applicants to make payment. Vide advertisement dated 9th

May, 2008, applicants were given extended opportunity to make

payment with 18% interest with penalty of Rs.5000/-. The last

extended date was 30th June, 2008. The appellant did not make

payment in terms of the said advertisements or even after the

advertisement dated 9th May, 2008.

8. The appellant claims that he had written a letter dated 28th

July, 2008, to the respondent stating that as per the information

available on the official website, he had been allotted a plot but

he had not received any allotment letter. This letter is not

available in the records of the DSIIDC. We need not go into the

said question but what is apparent is that the appellant was

aware that he had been allotted the plot in question. It is difficult

to accept and believe that in these circumstances, the appellant

was not aware about the last date of payment which was upto

30th June, 2008. Apparently appellant was sitting on the fence

and waiting.

9. There was complete silence between July, 2008 till 9th

June, 2010, when a show cause notice was issued by the

respondent for cancelling the allotment. This activated the

appellant and on not getting positive response, he filed the writ

petition challenging the order or rather the show cause notice

dated 1st June, 2010. It is clear from the facts stated above that

the appellant is guilty of delay and laches. The contention of the

appellant that he was not aware of the allotment and was not

responsible and liable for the default in making payment does

not merit acceptance. Pleadings and letters/correspondence

shows that he had knowledge. Conduct of the appellant dis-

entitles him to claim allotment and any relief in exercise of

discretionary jurisdiction. It is apparent that the appellant wants

to encash on the increase in the prices of land, though initially

he had lost interest and has failed to make payment inspite of

ample opportunities.

10. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit

in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE

April 4, 2011 kkb