Delhi High Court
V. Aggarwal Industries vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 29 July, 2011
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
SPL. BENCH
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON: 29.07.2011
+ REVIEW PET. 401/2011, CM APPL. 10890-10891/2011
IN WP (C) 8969/2007
V. AGGARWAL INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sugriva Dubey, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Renuka Arora, for DSIIDS.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers YES
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be YES
reported in the Digest?
MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
% In this proceeding, the review petitioner seeks recall of the order dated 03.12.2007
by which WP (C) 8969/2007 was disposed off.
2. The writ petitioner had approached the Court for direction to quash/set-
aside the determination dated 15.10.2004 by the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure
REVIEW PET. 401/2011 IN WP (C) 8969/2007 Page 1
Development Corporation (DSIIDC). The petitioner had been offered the allotment of an
alternative site at Bawana Industrial Area in respect of 100 Sq. Mtr. plot. This was in lieu
of the non-confirming industry in which the petitioner had engaged in through proprietary
concern M/s V. Aggarwal Industries, in residential Premises i.e. the plot no.9/74, Gali
Bagichi, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi - 110 032.
3. The petitioner had complained that the respondents particularly the
DSIIDC had unjustifiably clubbed two units and offered one plot whereas according to
his interpretation, the two proprietary concern which were engaged in different industries
were entitled to complete relocation i.e. allotment of two alternative sites.
4. This Court had in the orders sought to be reviewed reasoned as follows: -
"While the benefits of the scheme undoubtedly should go to those entitled to it,
what cannot be lost sight of is the fact that the units were carrying on industrial
activity in an area which was declared as non-confirming. Therefore, the scheme
was essentially rehabilitative one whereby concessional land developed by the
state agency i.e. DSIDC was being offered. Since the respondents determined,
after considering the materials including the circumstances alleged by the
petitioner about the two units, to be appropriate to offer one plot, in the absence
of any manifest injustice or illegality, I am of the opinion that no infirmity can be
found with it. The petitioner has not only not disclosed the other entitlement or
allotment, but not attempted to implead the other parties, i.e. the partnership and
the other partners, who are necessary for a decision in this case. In fact the other
party i.e. the partnership firm has not approached this court with any grievance.
Even otherwise the impugned letter offering one plot has apparently been acted
upon in the sense that the petitioner has accepted it.
No material has also been shown by way of protest letter on behalf of the
petitioner, at the relevant time, since the allotment was made in October 2004. In
these circumstances this is not appropriate case where this court should exercise
its jurisdiction under article 226. Accordingly, the petition is rejected."
Shri Sugriva Dubey, learned counsel urges that the order dated 03.12.2007 had been
carried in appeal in Division Bench; however, the petitioner was directed to approach the
REVIEW PET. 401/2011 IN WP (C) 8969/2007 Page 2
Single Judge with the facts urged. The petitioner's grievance appeared to be that the
impugned order had wrongly reflected that he had not impleaded the partners of the other
concerns, whom, it claimed to be associated with in the other business for which
alternative plot was sought.
5. This Court has considered the averments in the Review Petition as well as
the annexures. Apart from reiterating the averments in the Writ Petition, the Review
Petitioner has not brought into notice of the Court any new facts or circumstance. Mr.
Sugriva Dubey, nevertheless, urges that the petitioner i.e. M/s V. Aggarwal Industries
also carried another business i.e. Wirenetting in the same premises i.e. plot no.9/74, Gali
Bagichi, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi - 110 032. He submits that the competent
authority had issued the license in this regard and by advertence, the same has not been
placed on the record.
6. The petitioner's grievance - as articulated before the Division Bench
appears to be that this Court had been influenced by the existence of the partnership. If
that is the circumstance, what has now transpired, during the course of the proceedings, is
that both the businesses were carried out by the same concern i.e. V. Aggarwal Industries.
That proprietorship concern is the Review Petitioner and indeed also the Writ Petitioner
in the original proceedings before the Court. The petitioner was offered a 100 Sq. Mtr.
plot in lieu of the non-confirming activity/activities carried out in the existing residential
premises i.e. plot no.9/74, Gali Bagichi, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi - 110 032.
Having regard to the objective sought to be achieved by the policy i.e. relocation of the
non-confirming industries as a measure of compassionate rehabilitation, this Court
REVIEW PET. 401/2011 IN WP (C) 8969/2007 Page 3
discern no injustice or discrimination. This is all the more since the petitioner claims to
have carried on two different activities in the same premises. Were the petitioners
contentions accepted and separate plot offered to the same proprietary concern, the entire
object of rehabilitation would itself be subverted because in such an event, it is quite
possible that a large number of same proprietors can approach the authority with multiple
applications claiming to be engaged in several business - all of them being illegal as non-
confirming and yet at the same time, demand perfectly legitimately the allotment of an
alternative site. Such an interpretation does not subserve public interest and has to be
merely stated to be rejected.
7. This Court is satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of the
record nor has the petitioner disclosed any sufficient cause for recall or review of the
previous order dated 03.12.2007. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
JULY 29, 2011
/vks/
REVIEW PET. 401/2011 IN WP (C) 8969/2007 Page 4
