WP (C) 12920-04 Page 1 of 4 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: 21.04.2009 + W.P. (C) 12920/2004 M/S MARUTI PACKERS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Anand, Advocate. versus GOVT. OF N.C.T. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT) % The petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to handover a possession of the plot in Village Bawana being No.2/D/21. It is claimed that the plot was allotted to it sometime in 1998. 2. The petitioner was, like several others industrial concerns or manufacturing units, who were carrying on his activities in non-conforming zones, directed to cease operations and close the Unit by 31.12.1996 pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court. As a part of the Scheme WP (C) 12920-04 Page 2 of 4 evolved by the respondent agency, Units were eligible for consideration for re-allocation of their Units in industrial areas to be subsequently developed. The petitioner applied for one such plot under the Scheme. It is contended that the application was for a 400 sq. mtr. Plot. The second respondent informed to the petitioner on 3.4.1998 that it could be allotted 250 sq. mtr., and demanded Rs.94,500/- over and above the initial earnest money deposit of Rs.1,20,000/-, which the petitioner claims to have deposited on 4.6.1998. It is contended that despite having complied with the respondent’s demands, the latter are not taking any follow up action towards handing over of the property. This inaction, it is submitted, is arbitrary and un-reasonable. It is further claimed that on 25.7.2004 the respondents showed the petitioner to be eligible in the list of re-allocated industrialists updated as on that date. For these reasons, the petitioner claims that inaction of the respondents is unreasonable and arbitrary. 3. The respondent No.2 – DSIDC in its counter affidavit does not deny that the petitioner was in fact allotted the plot as claimed. However, it contends that the petitioner deposited Rs.2,24,024/- which was less than 50% of the total amount required to be paid, as a result of which the possession of the plot could not be given to it. The respondent further state interestingly in its counter affidavit that a policy decision regarding giving possession of alternate plots to owners of those units which existed in Samaipur Badli is still pending with the office of Commissioner of Industries of which Respondent No.2 is the implementing agency. WP (C) 12920-04 Page 3 of 4 4. It is further averred that though the petitioner has not yet been officially declared ineligible by the Respondent Corporation due to non- compliance with the schedule of payment, possession has not been given to the petitioner due to non-payment of 50% of the total amount to be paid against the cost of the plot and also because of the unit of the petitioner being in Samaipur Badli which has been earmarked for re-development scheme under the Master Plan – 2001 and a final decision in this respect is pending with Respondent No.1. 5. The above discussion would show that on the essential facts with regard to the closure of the petitioner’s Unit, its application for an alternative plot, payment of Rs.2,24,024/- and allotment made, there is no dispute. The DSIDC does not join issue with the petitioner’s averments. Even though the payment of 50% amount deemed essential as on 31.3.2001 was not satisfied in this case, it has not yet determined the petitioner to be ineligible for possession. Apparently it is awaiting a further policy decision because the Samaipur Badli was earmarked for re-development. 6. In view of the above, it is apparent that the respondents are not completely denying the petitioner’s case. The fact, however, remains that according to its policy, the allottee had to deposit 50% of the amount before a stipulated date i.e. 31.3.2001. However, for the reasons best known to it, the respondent is not treating the matter as closed because of some gap in its decision making; it has linked the petitioner’s case with some re- development plans for Samaipur Badli. In the circumstances, the Court is of WP (C) 12920-04 Page 4 of 4 opinion that even while not granting the petitioner the directions sought, the respondents should indicate their final thinking in the matter and pass an appropriate orders, communicating whether or not the petitioner would be entitled to possession and if so for what reasons. The said exercise shall be completed and the order/letter communicated to the petitioner within three months from today. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Order dasti to the parties. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) APRIL 21, 2009 /vd/