M/S. Jayant Gas Service And Anr. vs Dda
2013 Latest Caselaw 4576 Del

$~3
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 2499/2010
      M/S. JAYANT GAS SERVICE AND ANR.             ..... Petitioners
                    Through: Mr. Manish Sharma, Adv.

                         versus

      DDA                                                        ..... Respondent
                         Through:      Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Adv.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL

                                  ORDER

% 03.10.2013

1. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner No.2 averring that she was allotted a gas agency on 04.10.1973 by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC). Subsequently, in the year 1973 she was also allotted a godown, that is, site no.2, measuring 270.85 sq. mts., near Hari Nagar Bus Depot, New Delhi on licence basis.

2. The initial licence fee was `1500/- per annum. The same was, however, increased to `1750/- per annum sometime in early 80's. The grievance of the Petitioner is that since the year 1999, some illegal demands are being raised by the DDA without any basis. It is stated that in the year 1999, the DDA started raising a demand of `38,000/- per annum. Now, a letter dated 23.03.2010 is issued by the DDA to the Chief Divisional Manager, IOC informing IOC that a sum of `2,03,614/- is due from the Petitioner as licence fee upto 31.03.2010. The said letter was forwarded by the IOC to the Petitioner. The Petitioner also refers to an earlier letter dated 13.10.2009 written by the Assistant Director, (PP)/CL, DDA to the Chief

Area Manager, IOC whereby the IOC was informed that a sum of `9,000/- (provisionally) was payable by the Petitioner as licence fee up to 31.12.2009. Obviously, the IOC had forwarded this letter also to the Petitioner. The Petitioner had vide letter dated 11.11.2009 made a representation to the DDA disputing the said figure of `9,000/- being payable by him towards the licence fee to the DDA. The Petitioner had also asked for the details of the outstanding amount along with date when the amount became due. The Petitioner had then again approached the DDA by a letter dated 17.12.2009 stating that on reconciliation of the account only a sum of `1315/- had been found to be payable by the Petitioner which the Petitioner had deposited by a challan no.64590 dated 15.12.2009.

3. In view of the letter dated 11.11.2009 and the letter dated 17.12.2009 wherein the Petitioner claimed for the accounts having been reconciled, the Petitioner disputes the current demand of `2,03,614/- raised by the letter dated 23.03.2010.

4. Learned counsel for the DDA draws my attention to the statement of accounts filed by the DDA wherein the details of the amount payable have been given.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges that neither this statement of accounts was disclosed to the Petitioner nor the basis on which this computation has been made has been disclosed. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the DDA that the rate to be charged was not informed to the Petitioner and the basis for the computation as also the computation (Annexure R-1) filed by the DDA was not disclosed to the Petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the DDA submits that the godown was allotted to the Petitioner temporarily for one year and that the demand of `2,03,614/- raised by the DDA is only provisional.

7. The question of cancellation of allotment is not before this court, therefore, the fact that the godown was allotted on licence basis for one year is of no consequence.

8. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 23.03.2010 is quashed.

9. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the DDA to inform the Petitioner the rate at which the licence fee is charged; and the basis thereof; and to pass a speaking order giving details of the amount payable by the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today.

10. It is made clear that the amount, if any, deposited/paid by the Petitioner to the DDA shall be adjusted with the amount found payable to the DDA.

11. This order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and the issue of the non-applicability of the circular dated 28.02.1994 is not being decided by this order.

12. If the Petitioner is aggrieved after passing the speaking order, it will be open to her to seek appropriate remedy available to her under law.

13. Copy of the order be given Dasti to the learned counsel for the parties.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE OCTOBER 03, 2013 vk