New Vikas Coop. Industrial ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1024 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  LPA No. 173/2011

New Vikas Coop. Industrial Society Ltd. ....Appellant.
                 Through Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Advocate.

                          VERSUS

Union of India & Ors.                       .....Respondents
           Through    Mr. Sachin Datta, Standing Counsel for
                      UOI.
                      Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Addl. Standing counsel
                      with Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocate
                      for Respondents 2 and 3.

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

                                ORDER

% 21.02.2011

The appellant in 1991 had filed a writ petition (C) No. 3564/1991

for direction to the Commissioner of Industries, Govt. of National

Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD, for short) to pay the rebate on sales

of handloom cloth in terms of the policies dated 17th June, 1983 and 21st

October, 1983. By the impugned judgment dated 22nd December,

2010, the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay and

latches. It has been observed that the claim pertains to the years 1983

to 1985 and the writ petition was filed in the year 1991.

2. The appellant had made three specific claims. First claim was for

reimbursement rebate at the National Expo at Kanpur held in 1983,

the second claim related to Mini Expo which was held in Jaipur in 1985

and the third claim was in respect of whole sale sales of handloom cloth

to primary handloom weaver coop. societies of Delhi.

3. As far as second and third claims are concerned, learned Single

Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay

and latches. The claim regarding mini expo at Jaipur commencing

from 15th March, 1985 was rejected on 5th June, 1986 by the Directorate

of Industries, GNCTD. Inspite of this rejection, the appellant kept on

making representations. On 28th June, 1989, the appellant was once

again informed that the claim was already rejected as communicated

vide letter dated 5th June, 1986. No rebate was admissible. The

appellant relies upon a communication dated 7th January, 1991, of the

Government of India, stating that the rebate was allowable. The

aforesaid letter dated 7th January, 1991, in our opinion is irrelevant.

The claim had to be and was processed by the GNCTD. The said claim

was rejected vide letter dated 5th June, 1986 and as noted above, the

writ petition was filed only in 1991 after a gap of nearly 5 years from the

date of rejection of claim.

4. The third claim in respect of whole-sale trade was rejected vide

letter dated 30th July, 1984. The writ petition in respect of the said

claim was also rightly rejected on the ground of delay and latches.

5. With regard to the first claim, in the counter affidavit filed on

behalf of the GNCTD, it was stated that the claim initially could not be

scrutinized as an enquiry was pending against the appellant society

before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi Administration. It

was stated that the rebate claim was withheld due to the complaint

about mal functioning of the appellant society. It was stated that the

enquiry report against the appellant society was furnished and made

available in the office of the Directorate of Industries, Delhi

Administration along with letter dated 20th March, 1991. It is,

therefore, seen that the first claim made by the appellant was not

rejected and was kept pending because of the enquiry proceedings. The

report of the enquiry was furnished and made available to the said

respondent vide letter dated 20th March, 1991. Thus, it is apparent that

the claim of the appellant was not settled i.e. rejected or accepted

because of the pendency of the enquiry. It may be noticed here that the

enquiry report is dated 19th May, 1986, but the Registrar of Cooperative

Societies belatedly forwarded the enquiry report and furnished the

same only on 22nd January, 1991.

6. With regard to the first claim, accordingly, the matter is

remanded to the Directorate of Industries, GNCTD to examine the case

of rebate/refund. It will be open to the Directorate of Industries to

examine the enquiry report and the effect thereof. It is clarified that

this Court has not expressed its opinion on the merits of the claim for

refund.

7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of without any orders as to

costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE February 21, 2011 Kkb/VKR