$- * trl IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI w.P.(o 8086/2010 & CM 20848/2010 PVC COMPOUND & FOOTWEAR MANUFACTURERS ASSOCTATTON (REGD) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Susheel Bhartiya and Mr. pranav, Advocates for Mr. Sunil Goel, Advocate versus DSIIDC LTD & ORS ..... Respondents Tluough: Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Ms. Renuka Arora and Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocates for R-I/DSIIDC. Mr. L.K. G*g, Advocate for R-2 & 3/GNCTD. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 14.12.2010 1. A detailed order has been passed today in w.p.(c) No. 7l4l of 2010 .$Yarender Kumar v. DSIIDO and batch, including the present writ petition. The Registry is directed to place on the record of this petition a certified copy of the order. 2' The writ petition and the pending application stand dismissed in terms of the said order. DECEMBER 14,2010 akg S. MURALIDHAR, J. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified r'l IN #60-66 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI NARI]NDER I(UMAR AND ORS Through: Mr. T.A. Iirancis and Mr. Mahesh I(atYaYen, Advocates . VETSUS DELI-II STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTUCTURE DEVEL OPMENT COI{PORATION LTD.AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. AnusuYa Salwan with Ms. Renuka Arora and Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocates for R-I/DSIIDC' Ms. MeghaBharatafor Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for R-2IGNCTD' w.P.(O 763212010 & cM L9839/20L0 VINOD I(UMAR Through: Mr. Girish Aggarwal with Ms. Mugdha PandeY, Advocate- VEI'SUS 'IFIE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTIUES & ORS.."' Rcsponclerrts Through: Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Ms. Renuha Arora and Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocates for R-2 & 3/DSIIDC' None for R-1/. w.P.rc\ 776812010 & clry.{2013912010 I] AWANA II, BI-IORGARH INDUS TIUAI, RELOCATI ON PI-O'| OWNER'S AS S OCIATION TFtr{ ITS PRESIDENT KAPIL KLMAR Through: Mr. Prasoon I(umar with Mr. Itavi ChoudharY, Ms. I(anchan Bala and Mr. Deepak Chander Pal, Advocates' versus GOVT OIr NCT & ORS ResPondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate for R-I/GNCTD' Ms. AnusuYa Salwan with 4 ..... Petitioners Petitioner W.P.(C) Nos.7L4L of 2070 batch Page 7 of 77 Ms. Renuka Arora and Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocates for R-2IDSIIDC. VI w.P.(o 8086/2010 & CM 20848/2010 PVC COMPOI.IND & FOOTWEAR MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (REGD) ..... Petitioner Tluough: Mr. Susheel Bhartiya and Mr. Pranar', Advocates for Mr. Sunil Goel, Advocate VCTSUS DSIIDC L'ID & ORS ..... Respondents (t Through: Ms. A,nusuya Salwan with Ms. Renuka Arora and Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocates for R-I/DSIIDC. Mr. L.K. Garg, Advocate for R-2 & 3/GNC'I'D. w.P.(o 8097/2010 & cM 20864/2010 BI{AI{DWAJ PACKAGING INDUSTRIE$ & ORS .... Petitionels Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava with Mr. Ritesh Thusu, Advocate versus DEI-I-II STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR Thro'gh: Ms. Anus'ya salwu', ;'#"spo'de'1s Ms. Renuka Arora and Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocates for R-1/DSIIDC. Mr. Amitabh Malwah, Advocate for R-2IGNCTD. w.P.(o 8193/2010 & cM 2L11412010 BAV/ANA FACTORIES WELFARE ASSOCIATION REGD & ANR .... Petilioners Through: Mr. Rajan I(. Chourasia with Mr. Rakesh I(umar, Advocate. versus GOVT OII NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent Throngh: Mr. L.K. G*g, Advocate for It-l & 2/GNCTD' Ms. Anusuya Salwan with a W.P.(C) Nos. 7747 of 2070 botch Page 2 of 77 Ms. Renuka Arora and Ms. Neira Mittal, Advocates for R-3/DSIIDC. and w.P.(o 8230/2010 & cM 21184/2010 I{AJNI & ORS . Petitioners Through: Mr. Varun Mehlawat, Advocate. VdTSUS GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Megha Bharara fol Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for R- 1 /GNCTD. Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Ms. Renuka Arora and Ms.'Neha CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURAI-,IDHAIT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? X . ,- 2. To be referred to the.Reporter or not? v/ ,/ 3. Whether the judgment should be repofted in Digest? t/ ORDER L4.12.2010 1. 'Ihis is the second batch of writ petitions challenging the detnand raised by the Delhi State Industrial &. Infiastructure Development Corporation Ltd. ('DSIIDC') requiring the Petitioners to deposit the' cqst of the plots allotted ,to them ad-measuring 100 sq. m. in Sector It; Bawatra-Il at Bhorgarh @Rs. 15,5661- per sq' m' 2. The earlier writ petitions wele disrnissed by this Courl on 26'l' October 2010 lw.P.(c) 7143 of 2010 - Mohd rsun v. DSIIDCI. I-Iowevcr', counsel for the Petitioners in this batch have stated that some of the grounds that they wish to urge were not considered by this Cotut on the W.P.(C) Nos. 7L41 of 2o7o batch Page 3 of 77 \ a earlier occasion. 3. It is first submitted that the cost of Rs. 15,5661- per sq. ln. as indicated in tlre demand letter dated 17tl' September 2010 shows that a sum of Rs. 4,259J0 pel sq. tn. is on account of 50o/o of gross cost added as per the govemment policy for light industry, for cross-subsidy towards categories such as housing for econornically weaker sections ('EWS')' It is slbmitted that the Petitioners are themselves displaced persous inasmuch as they were earlier running industrial units prior to 19tl' April 1996 ir-r non-confolning areas and were being rehabilitated pursuant to a relocation scherne. They could not be expected to bear the cost of cross- subsidy towards categories such as the EWS. 4. Secoldly, it is subrnitted that this element of the cost was nevel' comrnunicated to the Petitioners either when the applications were inviteci in 1996 or even when the allotments were made in 2006. The ornnibu"s clause in the allotrnent letter stating that the cost.was 'tentative' could not .be open-ended. According to the Petitioners, this did not pelrnit tite DSIIDC to add an element of cost which was not originally envisaged while indicating the tentative cost to each of them. Reliance is placecl on tlre decision of a Full Bench of this Court in P.N. Verma i. Urtion cf Inrlia AIR 1985 Delhi 417, whicle was upheld by the Suplelne Court, and tlre decision of the Supreme Coutt in Delhi Developnrcnt Autltority"r| Joint Actiort Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats AIR 2008 SC 1343 ' It is Page 4 of 77 ( t lt J W.P.(C) Nos.7747 of 2070 batch 'further submittecl that the stand of the Respondent DSIIDC that they wer6 \ merely abiding by the policy of the Governmcnt of National Capital \ Tegitory of Delhi ('GNCTD') and had no choice in the tnatter, was not a' satisfactory explanation. It is pointed out that neither in the Bawana-I Scheme, nor in the Narela Scheme, was any element of cross-subsidy towar-ds EWS housing sought to be added to the cost of the industlial plots. Refening to cefiain obseruations of a Division Bench of tliis Court in DSIIDC v. Yoslryal Maclan 145 (2008) DLT 642 (DB), it is pointed or.rt that.even where the cost of the plots in Narela was detemined at ll-s' 24,0001- per sq. m., the EWS cross-subsidy was not sought to be recovered fiom those plot-holders. 5. Thirdly, it is subrnitted that there were around 23,000 persons rvho faced displacement on account of their running units in non-conlbrming areas prior to 19tr' April 1996. Nearly 19,000 were allotted alternative J plots i1 differelt aleas including Bawana-I and. Narela. They were noi' charged any component of cross-subsidy towards Ews housing. It is, therefore, subrnitted that the Petitioners, belonging to thc same class, . ca11ot be discrirninatecl against and be made to pay towards cross-subsidy for the EWS housing. It is submitted that r,qhile the Petitioners a.rp prepared to pay the cost as indicated in the first dernancl raised in 2006. the present cost of Rs. 15,5661- pe1 sq. m. was double the said cost and . was clearly arbitrary and exorbitant. Even if they were extended assistance with loans fiom the Delhi Financial Corporation ('DFC') and W.P.(C) Nos. 7747 of 2O70 batch Page 5 of 77 I other. financial institutions, the financial burden would be too heavy on1 -V them. 6. In another set of petitions, it was subrnitted that charging Rs. 1000f per sq. tn. towards O & M cost (Corpus Fund) was also arbitrary ai:ci unr-easonable. In an earlier communication in response to an applicatic'il fi1ed under the Right to Inforrnation Act,2005 ('RTI Act') the Respondent DSIIDC maintained that they were charging 2.5% of the land val'"re towards anngal maintenance apart fiom charging 2.5% tciwalds the anuual grould rent. This would amount to charging twice for maintenancc. Ti:er Petitioners have also questioned the charging by the DSIIDC of interest fionr them at 18% per annum for the deiayed payrnent while paying to them interest only at I0o/o per annum for the amounts already deposited.by them with the DSIIDC. It is ftiilher pointed out that the interest was beirlg paid o'ly for the period l't April 2009 to 31't Maloh 20II whereas tlic: arnounts were deposited fiom 1996 onwards. In this connection, reliancc has been placed on the judgrnent of the Supretne Court in Vi'deocott Properties Ltcl. v. Dr. Bhalchanclra Luboratories AIR 2004 SC 1787' 7 . Inthe r-eply filed by the DSIIDC in W.P.(C) 77 68 of 2010 (which replv is cornmon to all the writ petitions) the basis for charging the component for cross-subsidy towards category such as EWS has been explained'i1 parallasrurder: "'fhat during the last 3-4 years, the airswering respondetlt a has W.P.(C). Nos. 7741 of 2070 batch Page 6 of 77 completecl the development in Bhorgarh industrial area and aftei' takilg into account the enhanced land compensations and enhanced proje:t costs, the costs per sq.mt of saleable area has been calculatecl as Rs.8158/- per sq.mt in Financial Year' 2008-09. Tbe rnatter was placed before the Govetnment, and the governtnedt, after taking into consideration the cqst determilation metliocl adopted by DDA and the future maintenance needs of the industrial area, approved the following cost: a) Gross cost per sq.mt' in 2008-09 b) Cost of capital @ I0% p.a. for 2009-II c) 50Yo of gross cost added as per Govt' Policy for Light industry (for cross subsidies towards categories such as EWS) cl) Future O & M cost (CorPus Fund) e) Cost Per sq. mt. (a+b+c+d) $ \t Rs.8518.10 Rs. 1788.80 Rs.4259.10 Rs. 1000.00 Rs.15566.00" a 8. A copy of the govelrrment Circular dated 17th August 2010 notifyin$ the rate fbr the Industrial Estate - Bhorgarh at Bawana-Il has been' enclosed. It is pointed out that a Comrnittee was constituted complising the Additional Commissionel of Industries (GNCTD) as Chairman, tire Deputy commissioner of Industries (GNCTD), chief Manager (Relocation), DSIIDC, Deputy Financial Advisor (works), DSIIDC anct Executive Engineer (Bhorgarh), DSIIDC. The Committee determined the cost based on the expelditure incuned and projected by the DSIIDC' T'he committee noted that the cost of the plots had increased fiotll the initial estimate of Rs. 5,1501- per sq. m. to about Rs' 8,5201- per sq' m' due to valious factors such as irnprovetnent of street lighting, inclusion of 60 rn' wide MP Road for better connectivity, construction of an underground W.P.(C) Nos. 7747 of 2070 batch Page'7 of 77 ;l reservoir and effluents purnping station, increase in the cost itd$J increase i1 the Delhi Jal Board charges and in increase in electrificati} costs etc. This bomrnittee also tooh note of the problems of maintenance faced by ildgstrial estates set up earlier and suggested the setting up of a corpus for a long-term maintenance fund. Accordingly, it was sllggested that Rs. 1,000/- per sq. ln. should be charged'fiom each allottee for . creatiou'of the l"d so that it rnay generate a corpus of Rs' 75 crores' A copy of the minutes of the Committee has been enclosed with the affidavit. 9.It appears that the rationale for including a component towards cl'oss- subsidy for IIWS housing was based on the prevalent practice oI 1.ire DDA. In paras 15 and 16 of the affidavit, it has been explained as under: ., I 5. That the multiplier of 1 .5 applied for Bhorgarfi is the same as that applied by the DDA for plots under 'Light Industry' category a in the size range of 50 sq. meter to 400 sq. meter. The rnultiplier of 1.5 has been applied as per the clirections ancl approval of the Government. The arnount so generated is to be usecl towards non- tar.getecl cross subsidy for developrnent of Econornically Weaker sections (Ews) housing, JJ & squatters, settlement, etc. 16. Thal the DDA has been appiying the multiplier at least fiom IggZ onwarcl. In this regard, the documents obtained fi'om DDA toward.costing of Dwarka Project rn 1992 and Til<ri I(alan Plastic '. Baza4t in 1999; and sorne notifications of Predetermined Land . Rates issued by the Ministry of urban Development ancl Povedy Alleviation, Government of India in 2009 and 2010 are enclosed as Aunexures-C (Colly) respectivcly' W.P.(C) Nos.7L4L of 2070 batch ' Page I of 17 i 'Ihe perusai of DDA land costing methodology (Annexure Ci)\\ wonld clearly reveal that in Dwarka Project in 1992, against the \ - break-even rate of Rs. 1100.46 pel sq.mt., a higher rate of Rs' I375.54 has been charged for industrial land, whereas lower rate of I{s.550 .22 per sq.rnt. has been charged for Ews and JJ & Squatters settlement. Lower rates have also been charged fi'om sotne other categoribs like LIG, charitable institutions, and utilities. Sirnilarly, DDA Resolution of 1999 (Annexure c2) notihes the rate of industrial plots of 300 sq. meters and 495 sq. meters as Rs' 2305 per sq. rneter and Rs. 2689 per sq. meter against the Break Ilven Rate of Rs. 1536 per sq. rneter; whereas tnuch lower/nominal costs have bgen fixed for lands for police station, fire station, health setvices, utilities, etc' The Government of India, Ministry of Urban I)eveloptnenl notifications {Annexures C3 (Co11y)} of ple-determined rates for Plastic B.azaar, Tikri I(alan for year' 2008-09 and 2009-10 also apply multiplier of 1.5 for 'Light Industry' plots of 300 sq. meters in size. From the above it would be kindly seen that the policy of applying nultipliel is reasonable a1d is in use for a long time'" 10. It is explained that the DSIIDC did not apply the above multiplier o1' 1.5 for Bawana-I plots since it had a low market price in the i'itial years oI development. A nurnber of eligible applicants had opted out of those allotments and sought lefund of the earnest money deposited' I-Iowever' the expelience as regards the Bhorgalh plots has been differenf:' It is pointed out that the market rate for the sale disposal of the land and for chalging uneatned increase at Ilawana (Bhorgarh) has continuou'qly Pdge 9 of 17 W.P.(C) Nos. 7L47 of 2070 bdtch a I increased as uttder: s "Year 2004-05 200s-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-1 I Bawana Industrial Alea (Bhorgarh)' W.P.(C) Nos. 7747 of 2070 batch Rate of Industrial land at Bawaua (Rupees Per square meter) 6,720 8,400 10,080 27,400 30,140 33,I54 36,469" a 1 1. It is furlher stated as under: "It is pertinent to mention that the rnarket rate for industrial land notified by the government for 2010-11 for ]Jawana Industrial Area is Rs. 36,4691- pe1square meter' 'fherefore the rnarket rate for Bhorgalh may be taken as.Rs. 36,4691- per sq' meter. al par with the rate of nearby estates. compaled to the nlarket rates, the allotment made by the respondent @ Rs.15,566 l- per sq. lneter is still much on the lower side and is reasonable. Even the circle rate cletermined by the Government of NCT of Delhi is approximately Rs'27 '4001-;' 12.'lhePetitioners have, however, disputed the above figures' 'fhis court has no lneans, in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution' to deterrnine the above disputed question of fact' There is no basis fol tl'e Court to doubt the coffectness of the details set out by the DSIIDC in its affrrdavit as regards prevalent market rate and circle lates for plots in Page 1.0 of 77 t r/ 13. On a consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for th\) parties, one of the first questions that this Court is called upoll to considet' is r,vlrether the recovely of 50yo of the gross cost for light industries I'or' cross-subsidy towards Ews housing, amounting to Rs. 4259.10 per sq' m., itt tellns of the policy of the GNCTD, is arbitrary or unreasonable ip the context of Article 14 of the Constitution? This Court finds that the decision to charge Rs. 4259.10 as cross-subsidy lowards categories such as EWS hogsing is based on a government policy. The allotment letters were issued to about 4615 units in Bhorgarh in 2005 and 2006' It was clearly indicated at that time that the cost per plot was Rs' 5J501- per sct: rn. but also that it was a teltative one. The precise clanse in the allotmenl: letter in this regard read as under: "'fhe tentative cost of the plot is Rs. 5L501- pef sqllale tneter' which is subject to chauge depending upon the actual cost of development of the inclustrial plot and directions issued by the Governtnent of Delhi in this regard' .: : thisistoinfbrmyotrthatthecostindicatedaboveistentative. The allottee will be liable to pay any increase in the cost of the plot due to any reason(s) whatsoever'" 14. There were two distinct caveats in the above clause. The first was that the cost was itself tetrtative. It depended on the actual cost of development of the inclustlial plot. fhe second was that it also clependecl on th'e directions issued by the GNCTD. The addin g of 50Yo of the gross cost' of cross-subsidy for EWS housing to the cost of the plots is relateable to the a Page 77 of 77 W.P,(C) Nos.7747 of 2070 botch clilections issued by the GNCTD. In view of the above clause tn allotment lettet', tire Petitioners cannot claim to have been taketl surprise on account of the increase in the cost on the above score' 15. In this connection, this Courl would like to observe that there is a clear distinction between the facts in the case of P.N. Vurnra v. (Jnion of Intliu and tlre present case. P?|ra 4 of the judgrnent in P.N. Vernta sets ont'the relevant clause in those cases as 1egatds cost of the SFS flats' The saicl clause reads as under:- "The estimated cost of flats on each floor would be announced whenever specified schemes have been prepared takilg ilto consideration the location of each scheme, specifications and design of flats, cost of consffuction prevailing at the time of the execution of the scheme, fluctuations in other cost'factors'" 16. It is plain that in the above clause in P.l{. . vernru, l1o caveat was ' e'tered that the cost would increase on account of the clirections issued b,v governlnent fiorn time to tirne. secondly, those were sFS flats ancl no parallel can be drawn with a scheme like the present one involving allotment of inclustrial plots. For the same reason, the judgment of the Sr.rpre',e Courtin DDA,tt. Joint Action Conmtittee is also distinguishable' 17. Tlie decision of the DSIIDC, not to recovel' fiom the allottees of pl<11,s at Bawana-I or Narela, atrY element of crosd-subsidy towards DWS housing, is really a matter of policy. The DSIIDC would have had to W.P.(C) Nos.71'41' of 20LO batch Page 72 of 77 rn\ by t accolnt for several fbctors including the way in which the market behave(] \\ on the earlier occasion. The view of the DSIIDC that, given the response of the allottees of plots in Bawana-I, it would not be advisable to increase ftrrther tlte cost of the plots by adding any element of EWS cross-subsidy, calnot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. The situation now is obviously different. The figrrres set out in the counter-affidavit of the DSIIDC show that there has been a marked increase in the market rates of plots in Bawana-Il. The rate which was Rs. 10,080/- per sq. rrr. in2006-07 increased to Rs. 27,400 p., ,q. rn. in 2007-08. The subrnissiorr that the Respoldents by not adding an element of EWS cross-subsitly to the cost of the plots at Narela, where the market price was determined at Rs.24,000 l- p.er se. ffi., acted albitrarily is again to no avail. it is really for the Respondents to decide whether or not they would charge the cross- subsidy element fi'om different set of allottees at a given point iir tirne. It is diffic,rlt to hold such dccision to be either arbitrary or discrirninatory in telrns of Alticle 14. In matters of allotrnent of land at subsidisecl lates, the passage of tirne and the behaviour of the market are relevant factors which cannot be ignored by the Respondents. 18. It is lrged that the Respondents should not be simply seer to be rnaking profit and were expected to operate on a no-profit-no-loss basis. If one went by the figures given by the Respondents in their counter affidavit, then a plot of land for which the circle rate deterrnined by the GNCTD is Rs. 27,4001- pet scl, m., and for which the market rate is i{s. t' Page 13 of 17 W.P.(C) Nos.7747 of 2070 batch a . 36,46b1- per SQ. ffi., is being allotted at a rateof Rs. 15,5661-per sq' "$\ Surely, it cannot be saicl that the DSIIDC is profiteering fi'om the sale of plots at Bawana-Il (Bhorgarlr). It can well be said that the Petitioners a'r'e getting the plots at subsidised rates' 19. It was not practical to expect the Respondents to offer the alternative plots to all the 23,000 plot-holders running industrial r-rnits in nol]- conforrning area as on 19tl' April 1996 at one go. Alternative land had to be located a'd then developed to make it suitable for indust'ial purposes- 'fhe relocation had to obviously be done in phases and over a period cf time. It is inevitable in the process that the allotment of plots had to be sequential. This would inevitably lesult iir the later allotments being made at a cost higher than the earlier allotments' The market value of the lan'J has gone up in the meanwhile and that too dramatically' The later aliottees cannot be said to be prejucliced on this score. Moreover, admittedly the allottees \ave been extended the faciiity of 4vailing of loans fi'orn finarrcial institutions for the entile cost of the plot. Z0.Inits order clated zi't' October' 201 0 in Molrcl' Jaun v' DSIIDC' this Court had, while disrnissing the writ petitions, observed as under: ''i ,.2. This court finds that the scope of interfblence by this cor-irt in exercise of its powers under Afticle 226 of the constitution in tnatters ilvolving fixation of price by the authorities for land is narrow' In Ihvita Attuiu v. Delhi State Inclustrial & InJiastructtie Developnrcnt Corporation Ltcl. (decj.sion datbcl 16tr' F'ebruary 2010 irr civil Appeal No. 2192 12010 etc.) the suprcme coul was corlsidering W.P,(C) Nos.7l41" of 2070 botch Poge 74 of L7 - t I tlre challenge to the action of the DSIIDC in charging I{s. '4,2001-ttt$ ,q. rn. for plots in Bawana Ildustrial area, Rs. 5,,400/- per sq' tn' lor plots in'the Industrial estate at Narela, Jhilmil ald' Badli a'd Its' 7,5601- per sq. m. for plots in Patparganj Industrial atea. A Sirigle Judge of this Court had set aside the demand for the increased cost ou the ground that the DSIIDC failed to show that it had undetlaken any development activity or incuned any expenditure loss for the plots' Tiris was reversed by the Division Bench of this Courl'by a judgmqnt dated 22"'t Febnrary 2008. The Division Bench uphelcl the action crf tlre DSIIDC of c.harging F(s. 7 ,7761- pet sq. m. for the plots at Narela' This ju<lgment was challengecl in the Supreme Courl and the ot'der of the Division Bench of this court was upheld. In pata 13, it was observed by the Supreme Court as under: ,.13. The price of Rs. 54OOl- per sqm fixed in 2001 is not disputed by the allottees. Having regard to the interest otl tlre investment by way of financing cost, overheads. an$ other factors, if the policy of the NCT of Delhi is to increase the price every year by 20y0, it cannot be stated that the said increase is uffeasonable or arbitrary. Flaving