Sr. No. Orders Present : Mr-- Dinesh Agnani, Advosate for thepetitioner. Ms. Monica Sharma. Adveatcfor thc rcspondcnt. +cw 4386/2003 The petitioner is the pelpetual lessee of plot No.A-5011 and A-50/3. Okfila Industrial Area Phase-II in purzuance to the dulv ex€cuted registered lease deed dated 4.L2.1970. Thepetitioner started manufactuiingof paint and chemicals fiom the said plot- However, in the year 1996. the issue of canying on manufacturing activity of hazardous nature in these areas was oonsidered by ttre Supreme Court in M-C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.^ AIR 1996 SC 223L and it was held that such hazardous and obnoxious industries are not permitted to operate in Delhi by provisions of Master Plan and were thus to be relosated and shifted. In pursuance to the aforesaid dir-ections of the Supreme Court, orders were passed by the competent authorities on 27.9.1996 for closure of the industrial operations and the petitioner claims that he shifted the industrial rtivit_v to a new location from 7.1. 1 997. The petitioner wmte a letter to respondent No.l DDA seeking permission to mortgage the plot in favour of Allahabad Bank in view of the provisions in the pelpetual lease deed requir-ing such prior permission for mortgage. Since there was no response to the said letter. the petitioner sent reminders but to no avail. The request of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No-l vide letter dated 22.6.2m on the ground that ttre petitioner industr-v fell rvithin ttre list of hazardous industries. The petitioner vide its letter dated 14.7.?ffi responded to the same stating that he had ahead shifted the industrv to Faridabad and the plots rvere used onl-y for storage. The Registration Certificate of the unit in Faridabad was also -.rl SHRISHYAM SALES O2-O3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared the digital data is as per the physical file Signature Not Verified { \, - Sr. No. request of the petitioner vide letter dated L2.1'.2m1'. Some communication took place between Allatrabad Bank and No.t on account of ttre faet that Allahabad Bank claimed rights as a gagee in respect of the plot in que.stion while the DDA stated that they had not an-v such per-mission. The writ petition has been filed b-v the petitioner seeking directions the respondent to mnsider the application of the petitioner and to grant mission to mortgagein terms of clauseII (5Xb). In the counter affidavit filed bv the DDA it has been stated that ission was earlier granted to the petitioner to moftgage the plot in favour of i Finance Corporztion on 7.12.1970 but the permission could not be $aoted at request of the petitioner on l2.6.2ffi3 as on inspection it was found on22.5.2ffi3 the unit is continuing to store paints and varnishes and a small workshop for ing and matching of paints is existing. It was claimed that the business being out by the petitioner was under the category of obnoxious/hazardous The learned munsel for respondent on the last date of hearing relied the Delhi Master Plan - 2ffi1 and invited the attention of this court to Group H ies. Item No.7 deals with paints- The relevant extract is as under: "Group-H INDUS'|RI.b,S PROH[tsTfb,D WTf HIN UNTON .fb,RRTfORY O}.' Db,LHI {a) HAZARDOUS/i{OXI.OUS LNDUS'I'RIL UNILIS CELLULOSIC PRODUCTS SHRISHYAM SALES 02.03 f,f,x 6 Sr. No. Orders varnish (othcr than litho varaish) vamish removet5t turpentine and turpentine substitutes" A qua-v was thus put to learned counsel for the respondent as to whether shops selling paints arepermitted or not. Learned counsel replied to the same stating that the same rvould fall rvithin the category of commercial rrctivit-v. This aspect has been sx.amined b_v ttre learned counsel for the respondent and the same position is reiterated today. The effect of ttre aforesaid is that on one hand it is not disputed that paint shops can be run in these areas and would not be categorized as hazardous industries under Group H but if storage of paint and mixing takes place, the same would be hazardous. I fail to appreciate the aforesaid submission in view of the fact that the hc business of sale of such paint would require its storage. The mixing and matching of paints takes place tlrrough machines or otherwise and it is not being shown as to how mere storage can be hazardous while stomge and sell would be commersial. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that ttre petitioner has aheady a filed an undertaking before this court dated 10.11.2003 undertaking that the pro.oerty shall he used only for storage and mixing and matching and no manufacturing activity r+'ould be carried out in the premises. I-e.arned counsel for ttre respondent at ttris tiug" tt"t"s that in the counter- affidavit it has also been stated that ttre petitioner has not -uiven Form D and completion certificate as also an affidavit to theeffect that theplot has not been so1d. Learned counsel for the petitioner ststes that ttre petitioner has aheady informed the respondent that in a fire, documents of the petitioner were lost and the t* , ,/ /_, Io.-r'*- l, / \i SHRISHYAM SALES 02.03