Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Citedby 4 docs
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited, ... on 13 September, 2001
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Shashank Steel Industries (P) ... on 17 September, 2002
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Shashank Steel Industies (P) Ltd. on 17 September, 2002
Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 7 August, 2002

User Queries
Delhi High Court
Industrial Prograssive (India) & ... vs D.S.I.D.C. & Another on 31 July, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 44/2007

INDUSTRIAL PROGRASSIVE (INDIA) ... Petitioner Through Mr. V.K. Sharma, Adv.

versus

D.S.I.D.C. LTD. & ANR ... Respondent Through Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Ms.Renuka Arora, Advocates.

+ W.P.(C) 68/2007

ANANYA EXPORTS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. V.K. Sharma, Adv.

versus

D.S.I.D.C. & ANR. ..... Respondent Through Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Ms.Renuka Arora, Advocates.

+ CONT.CAS(C) 167/2009

ANANYA EXPORTS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. V.K. Sharma, Adv.

versus

V.K.GARG & ANR. ..... Respondent Through Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Ms.Renuka Arora, Advocates.

+ CONT.CAS(C) 168/2009

INDUSTRIAL PROGRESSIVE INDIA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. V.K. Sharma, Adv.

versus

WPC Nos.44, 68/2007 &

CCP Nos. 167-68/2009 Page 1 V.K.GARG & ANR. ..... Respondent Through Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Ms.Renuka Arora, Advocates.

+ CONT.CAS(C) 570/2008

ANANYA EXPORTS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. V.K.Sharma, Adv.

versus

V.K.GARG & ANR ..... Respondent Through Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Ms.Renuka Arora, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

ORDER

% 31.07.2009

1. This common order will dispose of W.P.(C) 44/2007 titled Industrial

Progressive (India) Vs. DSIDC Ltd. & Another and W.P.(C) 68/2007 titled

Ananaya Exports Vs. DSIDC & Another. For the sake of convenience, facts

in the case of Industrial Progressive (India) have been highlighted and

referred to. It is stated that the facts in the case of Ananaya Exports are

similar.

2. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of

WPC Nos.44, 68/2007 &

CCP Nos. 167-68/2009 Page 2 M.C. Mehta, DSIDC in 1996 had invited applications for allotment of

industrial plots under the relocation scheme. The petitioner deposited Rs.

1, 20,000/- with DSIDC on 28th December, 1996 and was issued letter of

eligibility.

3. By letter dated 10th October, 2000, the DSIDC informed the petitioner

that he had been allotted plot No.41, Pocket P, Sector-1, Bawana Industrial

Complex. The petitioner was liable to pay 50% of the estimated cost of the

plot of Rs.5,25,000/- by 31st March, 2001. The allottees were also informed

that they were entitled to loan from Delhi Financial Corporation (DFC) on

soft terms.

4. The petitioner approached DFC and deposited Rs. 4,000/- as

processing fee for the loan. DFC paid an amount of Rs. 3, 41, 250/- and the

petitioner made payment of Rs. 1, 83, 750/-. Rs. 5, 25,000/- was

accordingly paid. A tripartite agreement was executed between the

petitioner, DSIDC and the DFC.

5. Counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments admits

that the petitioner did not make any payment to DFC in terms of the

tripartite agreement between the petitioner, DFC and DSIDC.

6. In the year 2003, DFC due to defaults recalled the entire loan amount WPC Nos.44, 68/2007 &

CCP Nos. 167-68/2009 Page 3 from DSIDC and the consideration received by DSIDC from DFC including

the amount received from the petitioner was returned to DFC towards

repayment of the said loan in terms of the tripartite agreement. The

allotment of the petitioner was cancelled and the case was closed.

7. Counsel for the respondent DSIDC has placed on record copy of

advertisement dated 30th May, 2004 issued by DFC to plot holders, who

were allotted plots under the relocation scheme at Bawana Industrial

Complex. The said advertisement has been placed on record in terms of

order dated 25th March, 2009. As per the said advertisement issued by

DFC, another opportunity was granted to the allottees of 2001 to revive

their application for loan and for allotment of plots on complying with the

terms and conditions as mentioned. The said option of revival was

available to the petitioner on or before 30th June, 2004. The petitioner did

not avail and take benefit of the said option. As per the writ petition, the

petitioner kept quite till he wrote the letter dated 30th October, 2006 to

DFC. The petitioner by this letter wanted to revive the application for

allotment of plot under the relocation scheme. Thereafter, the petitioner

filed the present writ petition in 2007 with a prayer to issue mandamus to

the respondent DSIDC to allot plot No.41, Sector 1, Pocket P at Bawana WPC Nos.44, 68/2007 &

CCP Nos. 167-68/2009 Page 4 Industrial Complex.

8. The petitioner now relies upon circular dated 23rd April, 2007. The

relevant portion of the above said circular reads as under:-

"EXTENTION OF DATE FOR PAYMENT

In continuation to our earlier press

advertisement on 05.01.2007, the last date for making payment against the cost of flatted factories/plots allotted in the year 2000 (applicable in cases of those allottees of Bawana only who had made 50% payment by 31st March, 2001) and afterwards is extended further upto 30th June, 2007 on payment of 18% interest plus a nominal penalty of Rs. 5000/-. The penalty of Rs. 5000/-."

9. The contention of the petitioner is that 50% of the cost of the plot

was paid by the petitioner on or before 31st March, 2002, therefore, he is

entitled to benefit of the said circular. It is not possible to accept the

contention. In the present case, the petitioner had taken loan and entered

into a tripartite agreement with DSIDC and DFC. Pursuant to that tripartite

agreement, DFC had made payment of Rs, 3, 41,250/- on behalf of the

petitioner. There was breach of agreement and the petitioner did not pay

a single penny to DFC. The loan was recalled and the entire amount

deposited, was refunded to DFC in 2003. The allotment was cancelled. It is

not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid

WPC Nos.44, 68/2007 &

CCP Nos. 167-68/2009 Page 5 circular would apply even in cases where 50% payment was initially made

and subsequently refunded and the allotment was cancelled. The circular

will apply to cases where 50% of the estimated cost was deposited by 31st

March, 2001 and the said amount remained with DSIDC. This circular will

not apply when the amount paid is refunded/repaid.

10. Prices of industrial plots in Bawana Industrial Area have gone up

considerably and a number of earlier applicants, who had given up their

allotments or who were not interested, suddenly after lapse of 3 to 4 years

have shown interest in the allotment of industrial plots.

11. The aforesaid facts were noticed by the Managing Director of DSIDC

in his undated order, which was passed pursuant to directions issued by

this Court on 7th April, 2008 in the present writ petition. He has clarified

that the circular dated 23rd April, 2007 is meant for such allottees whose

deposit of 50% was available in the central funds of DSIDC and it does not

cover such allottees whose money had been taken back from DSIDC by the

concerned financier/banks or companies. In his order he has observed as

under:-

"The DSIDC has noted from experience that large number of allottees were initially reluctant to go to new industrial estates at Bawana & Narela due to WPC Nos.44, 68/2007 &

CCP Nos. 167-68/2009 Page 6 distance and high cost of plots being charged by Government. Recently the prices have gone up and the market price of industrial plots is much higher than the allotment price fixed by Govt. The DSIDC is getting a flood of applications for revival/reallotment of plots which were cancelled or withdrawn by the allotees themselves earlier. Any special dispensation in any particular case will open flood gates of such applicants who earlier did not bother to move their units from residential ares/non-confirming areas to relocate their industries in the newly developed industrial estates of Delhi Govt., in Bawana and Narela."

9. In view of the aforesaid facts, the writ petitions W.P.(C) 44/2007,

W.P(C) 68/2007 and Cont. Case (C) Nos. 570/2008 167/2009 & 168/2009

are dismissed as they have no merit.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

JULY 31, 2009

NA/P

WPC Nos.44, 68/2007 &

CCP Nos. 167-68/2009 Page 7