Rajinder Prasad Guta vs Gnct And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 4526 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                           Date of Decision: 01.10.2013

+      W.P.(C) 7631/2010

       RAJINDER PRASAD GUTA                    ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr V.P. Rana and Mr Rajiv Gupta,
                    Advs.

                          versus

       GNCT AND ORS                             ..... Respondents
                          Through: Ms Renuka Arora and Mr Kunal
                          Kohli, Advs for DSIDC


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner before this Court is running a small scale industry

under the name of Rajendra Plastics at S-28, Janta Market, Rajouri

Garden, New Delhi-110027. The respondent-Commissioner of

Industries invited applications for allotment of industrial plots/flats in

the functional industrial estates of Narela, Jhilmil Tahirpur, Jhilmil,

Badli, Okhla, Patparganj etc. The petitioner also applied for allotment of

a plot for the purpose of relocating his unit to such an industrial estate.

On 07.11.2000, the petitioner appeared before the Appeal Committee of

the respondents and after considering his documents the said Committee

found his case to be in order and therefore recommended allotment of a

plot to him under Relocation Scheme. However, no specific plot was

allotted to the petitioner and no payment was deposited by him with the

respondents, except the application money of Rs 1,20,000/- which he

had submitted along with the application. On 09.03.2007, the case of

the petitioner was reviewed and observing that the petitioner was

holding a Municipal Corporation Licence of local commercial area and,

therefore, his unit was not violating the parameters of local commercial

area, he was not considered eligible for allotment of a plot under

relocation scheme. Being aggrieved from the said decision, the

petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 8503 of 2007 which came to be decided by

this Court vide order dated 06.09.2008. The said order, to the extent it

is relevant reads as under:-

"4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 does not dispute the fact that before reviewing the order dated 7.11.2000, no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. He further submits that a show cause notice will be issued to the petitioner within three weeks from today. The petitioner will file a reply to the show cause notice thereafter. Petitioner No.1 will also give a personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter will consider the case of the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the stand of learned counsel for the parties, the present

petition is disposed of with the directions to respondent No.1 to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and grant him time to file reply and thereafter, give him a personal hearing also, subsequent to which a reasoned order be passed within a period of eight weeks from the personal hearing.

6. Needless to say that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the final order which may be passed, petitioner will be entitled to take appropriate measures in accordance with law."

2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner was

given a personal hearing by the Appeal Committee on 17.09.2009. The

Committee, after examining his documents, observed that his unit was

established during 1973-74, was situated in a local commercial area and

functioning within the parameter, as prescribed for local commercial

area in the Master Plan of Delhi and, therefore, it was not eligible for

allotment under the relocation policy, being situated in a conforming

area as per the Master Plan of Delhi. Being aggrieved from the

aforesaid decision of the Appeal Committee, the petitioner is before this

Court by way of this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the order dated 17.09.2009 passed by the Committee formed by respondent No.1 may kindly be quashed and set-aside, in the interest of justice.

It is further prayed that the order dated 07.11.2000, whereby the petitioner was recommended for allotment of plot under Relocation Scheme may kindly be restored and respondent may kindly be directed to allot the petitioner a plot as per law."

3. Clause 12 of the scheme framed by the respondents for allotment

of alternative industrial plot under the relocation scheme reads as

under:-

"12. Units located in Local commercial shall be considered for allotment if such units are otherwise eligible as per the eligibility criteria. However, units located in commercial areas and holding MCL under local commercial category and functioning within the parameters prescribed for such industries in MPD-2001 shall not be considered for allotment of alternate industrial accommodation."

4. The case of the petitioner is that though his unit was situated in a

commercial area and he was also holding a commercial licence, the

South Delhi Municipal Corporation refused to renew the licence granted

to him on the ground that he was running a plastic unit which under the

Master Plan was not permitted. The petitioner has in this regard placed

reliance upon a reply dated 20.05.2013, supplied to him by South Delhi

Municipal Corporation under Right to Information Act. To the extent it

is relevant, the said communication reads as under:-

"As per the prevailing policy of the Corporation "License in the Local Commercial category can be obtained to run an industry mentioned in „A‟, „A-1‟ & „B‟ categories of trades as per parameters for industrial units in different use zones and use premises mentioned in Table 7.1 of MPD-2021". The details of category „A‟, „A‟-1‟, „B‟ are available in the website of SDMC under domain name of www.mcdonline.gov.in.

Your license no. 69126 for manufacturing of Plastic goods for which you are seeking renewal, falls under „F‟ category hence the same cannot be renewed under Local Commercial Category"

It would thus be seen that South Delhi Municipal Corporation has

declined to renew the licence which it had earlier granted to the

petitioner for manufacturing of plastic goods, despite the fact that his

unit is situated in a local commercial area. Therefore, if the eligibility of

the petitioner is examined only in terms of clause 12 of the Scheme, as

extract hereinabove, he would be eligible for allotment of an alternative

industrial accommodation since despite the unit being situated in a

commercial area he does not hold a valid municipal licence for running

the said industry in a local commercial area.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents drawn my attention to the

decision taken by the High-Powered Project Implementation

Examination Committee in its meeting held on 22.06.1999, which inter

alia, reads as under:-

"Allotment of plots/flats to units situated in commercial areas:

The Committee agreed with the suggestion that the units located in commercial areas should not be considered for allotment of alternative industrial accommodation. It was felt that the only way to identify such units was to seek the help of MCD. It was, therefore, decided that the names and addresses of eligible units and units whose cases had been kept pending for decision because of their location in commercial areas, may be supplied to MCD with the request to identify if these units are located in commercial areas or not."

6. It would thus be seen that the respondents, vide aforesaid decision

dated 22.06.1999, decided that considering the limited number of plots

available for allotment under the relocation scheme, the units situated in

commercial areas should not be considered for allotment of alternative

industrial accommodation. Therefore, in terms of the said decision,

neither the petitioner nor any other unit situated in a commercial area

remained eligible for allotment of an alternative industrial

accommodation. However, the aforesaid decision dated 22.06.1999

came to be reviewed by Government of NCT of Delhi in a meeting of

the Delhi Cabinet held on 26.06.2006. The following, inter alia, were the

decision taken by the Cabinet in the meeting held on 26.06.2006:-

"(i) the existing 407 eligible applicants from the residential/non-conforming areas be given allotment from the 664 industrial plots available with DSIDC.

(ii) The remaining 257 vacant plot be allotted to applicants from local commercial areas.

(iii) the balance of 82 applicant belonging to local commercial areas would be eligible for allotment in case any other industrial plots become available due to cancellation or otherwise.

(iv) the eligible applicants belonging to local commercial areas who have already paid 100% cost of the allotted plot may be handed over possession of the allotted plot.

(v) eligible applicants who have been successful in draw of lots and specific plot numbers were earmarked but the allotment letters have not issued to them as their existing

industries were located in local commercial areas, may be issued allotment letters.

(vi) as regards the 82 applicants or such reduced number as a result of (iii) above, eligible applicants belong to local commercial areas be considered for allotment of alternative industrial plot, along with fresh applicants to be invited for relocation of industries from local commercial areas. These applicants would, however, have the option to get the payment made by them refunded except for earnest money deposit."

7. It would thus be seen that in view of the aforesaid Cabinet

decision dated 26.06.2006 even those units which were situated in local

commercial areas became eligible to be considered for allotment of

alternative industrial plots, meaning thereby that the decision taken by

the High-Powered Committee in its meeting held on 22.06.1999 got

superseded by the aforesaid Cabinet decision dated 26.06.2006. Since

the petitioner is running a unit situated in a local commercial area and he

does not possess a valid municipal licence, he also becomes eligible to

be considered for allotment of an alternative industrial plot along with

82 applicants mentioned in clause (iii) of the cabinet decision dated

26.06.2006 as also the applicants, if any, in terms of the fresh

applications, if any, invited for relocation of industries from local

commercial areas.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that clause (iii)

of the Cabinet decision dated 26.06.2006 applies only to those who were

eligible for allotment under the scheme and were already allotted

alternative industrial plots. The argument is wholly misconceived.

Clause (iv) of the Cabinet decision relates to the persons who had

already been allotted an alternative industrial plot and had already paid

100% cost of the allotted plot, whereas clause (iii) applies to those

persons who were otherwise eligible for allotment, but to whom no

allotment has been made. If the contention of the learned counsel for

the respondent is accepted, clause (iii) of the Cabinet decision dated

26.06.2006 becomes redundant. In any case, the decision is made quite

clear by clause (vi) of the Cabinet decision dated 26.06.2006 which

clearly stipulates that the aforesaid 82 applicants or their reduced

number in a case such number are reduced, would be eligible for

allotment of alternative industrial plot along with the fresh applications

which the respondents could invite for relocation of industries for local

commercial areas. Therefore, it would be difficult to accept the

contention that the aforesaid clause (iii) and (vi) of the Cabinet decision

dated 04.07.2006 do not apply to the petitioner. Even if the name of the

petitioner was not amongst the 82 applicants referred to in the Cabinet

decision, he has to be treated at par with them considering that he also

was eligible for allotment of an alternative industrial plot on account of

his not possessing a valid Municipal Corporation Licence, despite his

unit being situated in a local commercial area.

9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned decision dated

17.09.2009 is hereby quashed and the writ petition is disposed of with a

direction that the petitioner shall be treated at par with 82 applicants

mentioned in para (iii) of the Cabinet decision dated 26.06.2006, in all

respects. No order as to costs.

V.K. JAIN, J OCTOBER 01, 2013 BG