1 $- rr \) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 23. W.P.(O No. 12770 of 2009 PRAMOD KUMAR & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Jawahar Goyal and Mr. O.N. Sharma. Advocates. VETSUS DELI{I STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate for DSIIDC. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER o 03.08.2010 1-1. The Petitioners are Directors of Vico Scientific Sales Pvt. Ltd. ('VSSPL'). a An Industrial Plot No. 3, Sector-3 at Bawana was allotted to VSSPL by the Respondent Delhi Slate Industrial &, Infrastructure Development Corporation ('DSIIDC'). The Petitioners applied for allotment of dwelling units under the Self Financing Cost effective Workers Housing Registration Scheme under three application forms. In Application Form No. 9841, Petitioner No.2 applied under the category of 'Industrial Plot Allottee' on behalf of VSSPL. Applications 5345 and 5245 were made by Petitioners 1 and 2 respectively in their individual names describing themselves as workers. Provisional letters of allotment were issued to the Petitioners on 4tl' January 2006. W.P. (c) No. 72770 of 2009 Page 7 of 3 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 "l 2. The relevant portion of Clause 14 of the provisional allotment letter, inter olio, reads as under: "However, where the Corporation cancels the allotment for mi srepre s entation, fu rni shing of incorrect information or for committing default of the terms and conditions of the allotment, brochure, the Corporation shall be entitled to forfeit all the amounts, paid on or by the date of cancellation." 3. The Petitioners were allotted plots at Sector 3 Bawana Industrial Complex in the draw of lots held on 9th November 2006. During scrutiny of the documents, it transpired that the Petitioners 1 and 2 were Directors of VSSPL. They were sent a letter on 14th April 2007 requiring them to submit certified copies of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of VSSPL. Once it was confirmed that both Petitioners were in fact Directors and not '.. workers of VSSPL, a show cause notice was issued to them on 13th March a 2008 asking them to explain why the allotments should not be cancelled since they had made a misrepresentation that they were workers of the very company of which they were Directors. It was also stated that they had issued employment certificates in favour of each other to substantiate their eligibility. After receiving the Petitioners' replies, the Respondent passed the impugned order dated 19'h May 2009 whereby the allotment made against Applications 5345 and 5.245 were cancelled and the amounts deposited with the said applications were forfeited. The appeal against said cancellation was rejected on 22"d Septernber 2009. Thereafter the present writ petition was filed. w.P. (C) No. 72770 of 2009 Page 2 of 3 ,D 4. Learied counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the description of each of the Petitioners as 'Worker Director' in the two application fonns was bonafide. This according to him was not a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the facts. He submitted that the cancellation of the allotment for this minor mistake was not warranted. He submitted that in any event no case was made out for forfeiture of the entire application amounts. ) 5. This Court is unable to accept the above submissions. 6. Persons who are 'Directors' of a company cannot possibly 'mistakenly' describe themselves as 'workers'. What is worse is that Petitioners 1 and 2 had issued to each other employment certificates whereby one certified the other as an employee of VSSPL "for the purpose of applying for a dwelling unit under Self Financing Cost Effective Workers-Housing Scheme Bawana, Delhi". There can be no manner of doubt that this was a gross misrepresentation which rightly attracted cancellation of the two allotments. Further, in view of the wording of the relevant portion of Clause 14 of the terms and conditions of allotment, the application money was rightly forfeited. There are no grounds made out for interference. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J AUGUST 03, 2O1O dn r W.P. (c) No. 72770 of 2009 Page 3 of 3