3707/2008 Page 1 of 4 25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3707/2008 Date of judgment: 23.04.2009 MAHINDER SINGH PROP. MAHINDERA ENGINEERING WORKS ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Sanjeev Joshi and Mr. Sanjeev Kamra, Advocate. versus GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate, for GNCTD. Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate, for DSIIDC. 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) 1. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the respondents’ inaction in not intimating about the fate of his appeal, preferred sometime in 2001, against an order rejecting his request for allotment of alternative plot. 2. The petitioner claims to have been engaged in the business of job work in Vishnu Garden, a non-conforming area. 3. As a result of Supreme Court’s directions, such units had to and were closed down since they were operating from non-conforming zones/areas. As part of the Court’s directions, the respondent agencies formulated a Relocation Scheme. The petitioner applied for allotment of a 3707/2008 Page 2 of 4 plot. The Scheme contemplated contains a condition of eligibility that the operator or unit holder had to prove satisfactorily that he or it was functioning as on 19.04.1996. Certain category of documents were required to be furnished to satisfy the concerned authorities about the fulfillment of this criteria. 4. The petitioner had relied upon certain electricity bills and also other documents, including an application for increase of sanctioned load of the electricity connection to his premises. Apparently, the respondents’ reasoned that the documents furnished did not meet with the eligibility criteria and rejected the request for allotment. The petitioner appealed to a Committee set-up to review the internal decision. He relies upon a letter dated 31.07.2002 to the Additional Director, Department of Industries, including copies of certain documents. It is submitted that till he applied for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI, 2005), in December 2007, the fate of his appeal was unknown to him. Learned counsel relied upon a copy of the letter dated 07.01.2008 stating why his appeal was rejected. 5. Learned counsel reiterated the submissions made in the pleadings and also referred to the documents and contended that the petitioner met with the eligibility criteria of having functioned as on 19.04.1996. 6. The respondents’ in their counter affidavit contend that the petitioner did not attend the office despite several reminders; they too rely upon the letter/response dated 07.01.2008 in the following terms: “Ms. Nishu Gupta, 624, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054. Sub: Your RTI application dated 1.10.2007 received in this office on 7.12.2007 seeking information in respect of application no. 27751 of M/s Mahindera Engg. Works. 3707/2008 Page 3 of 4 Sir, Reference is invited to the subject mentioned above. In this connection, it is to inform you that as per the office record related to the above unit, it is found that Sh. Mahindera Sinh, proprietor of above firm was called by the Review Committee on 20.11.2001 to bring the electricity bill for the month of March, 1996 in original or a certificate from Delhi Vidyut Board regarding date of enhancement of load on the next date of hearing fixed on 29.11.2001 but be did not contact the committee again till 11.12.2001 in connection with the requisite demand. Hence, your case was rejected by the Office of Commissioner of Industries due to this reason. As requested, photocopy of the required document/notesheet as record of the above proceeding and reason of rejection is being forwarded here with to you as per provisions of the RTIA-05. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Encl: as above (D.K. Mishra) Public Information Officer” 7. It is contended besides that the petitioner was made aware of the fate of his appeal in 2001-02 itself and that the amount furnished along with the application by him was refunded. The extract of the Ledger Book maintained by the respondents has been filed in Court. 8. This Court has considered the submissions. There is no dispute with regard to the basic facts about the petitioner having applied for allotment. The question is whether the respondents acted unfairly in rejecting the request. 9. The respondents contend that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria and despite requests did not furnish the documents to substantiate the claim that he was functioning on the relevant date – the letter of 07.01.2008 alludes to the fact that the petitioner was asked pointedly to furnish a document disclosing that he had applied for enhancement of electricity load in the premises as on March 1996. In support of his claim, the petitioner relied upon certain electricity bills. The electricity bills dated 11.09.1995, no doubt, discloses petitioner’s name. 3707/2008 Page 4 of 4 However, curiously, there is no description of the premises. The copy of the electricity bill of 30.08.1996 is clearly after the cut-off date, i.e. 19.04.1996. The petitioner has also relied upon a sanctioned load document dated 15.03.1996 which shows that the existing sanctioned load was 0.25 KVA and in the category of Domestic Load (DL). Having regard to these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the respondents’ decision cannot be characterized as arbitrary. After all, their approach in such circumstances has to be to ensure that the eligibility conditions are strictly complied with. The scheme cannot be viewed as a larger welfare measure but only one to rehabilitate a class of people who were carrying on commercial activity where they were clearly disentitled to do so in terms of existing law. In many instances, the applicants were not owners of the premises but functioning from non-conforming premises as tenants. Having this perspective in mind, the respondents, to this Court’s mind, justifiably insisted on being satisfied that indeed an industrial unit was carrying on its activities in the premises, as claimed by the petitioner, before the cut-off date. Their determination that the petitioner was ineligible is, therefore, in the circumstances of the case, neither is unreasonable nor arbitrary. 10. There is one more reason the Court should desist exercising its powers under Article 226. The petitioner nowhere mentions that refund was made of his Earnest Money deposited as far back as 2002. In these circumstances, clearly the petition is hit by delay and laches. For the above reasons, the writ petition cannot be entertained; it is accordingly dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT JUDGE APRIL 23, 2009 ‘ajk’