LPA 173/2011 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA No. 173/2011 New Vikas Coop. Industrial Society Ltd. ....Appellant. Through Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Advocate. VERSUS Union of India & Ors. …..Respondents Through Mr. Sachin Datta, Standing Counsel for UOI. Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Addl. Standing counsel with Ms. Rachna Saxena, Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA ORDER % 21.02.2011 The appellant in 1991 had filed a writ petition (C) No. 3564/1991 for direction to the Commissioner of Industries, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD, for short) to pay the rebate on sales of handloom cloth in terms of the policies dated 17th June, 1983 and 21st October, 1983. By the impugned judgment dated 22nd December, 2010, the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. It has been observed that the claim pertains to the years 1983 to 1985 and the writ petition was filed in the year 1991. LPA 173/2011 Page 2 of 4 2. The appellant had made three specific claims. First claim was for reimbursement rebate at the National Expo at Kanpur held in 1983, the second claim related to Mini Expo which was held in Jaipur in 1985 and the third claim was in respect of whole sale sales of handloom cloth to primary handloom weaver coop. societies of Delhi. 3. As far as second and third claims are concerned, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches. The claim regarding mini expo at Jaipur commencing from 15th March, 1985 was rejected on 5th June, 1986 by the Directorate of Industries, GNCTD. Inspite of this rejection, the appellant kept on making representations. On 28th June, 1989, the appellant was once again informed that the claim was already rejected as communicated vide letter dated 5th June, 1986. No rebate was admissible. The appellant relies upon a communication dated 7th January, 1991, of the Government of India, stating that the rebate was allowable. The aforesaid letter dated 7th January, 1991, in our opinion is irrelevant. The claim had to be and was processed by the GNCTD. The said claim was rejected vide letter dated 5th June, 1986 and as noted above, the writ petition was filed only in 1991 after a gap of nearly 5 years from the date of rejection of claim. LPA 173/2011 Page 3 of 4 4. The third claim in respect of whole-sale trade was rejected vide letter dated 30th July, 1984. The writ petition in respect of the said claim was also rightly rejected on the ground of delay and latches. 5. With regard to the first claim, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the GNCTD, it was stated that the claim initially could not be scrutinized as an enquiry was pending against the appellant society before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi Administration. It was stated that the rebate claim was withheld due to the complaint about mal functioning of the appellant society. It was stated that the enquiry report against the appellant society was furnished and made available in the office of the Directorate of Industries, Delhi Administration along with letter dated 20th March, 1991. It is, therefore, seen that the first claim made by the appellant was not rejected and was kept pending because of the enquiry proceedings. The report of the enquiry was furnished and made available to the said respondent vide letter dated 20th March, 1991. Thus, it is apparent that the claim of the appellant was not settled i.e. rejected or accepted because of the pendency of the enquiry. It may be noticed here that the enquiry report is dated 19th May, 1986, but the Registrar of Cooperative Societies belatedly forwarded the enquiry report and furnished the same only on 22nd January, 1991. LPA 173/2011 Page 4 of 4 6. With regard to the first claim, accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Directorate of Industries, GNCTD to examine the case of rebate/refund. It will be open to the Directorate of Industries to examine the enquiry report and the effect thereof. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed its opinion on the merits of the claim for refund. 7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of without any orders as to costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. CHIEF JUSTICE February 21, 2011 Kkb/VKR