, ), 10* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI \ \\l + w.P.(c) 106/2007 \ ' MOOLI DEVI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Lalit Kumar, Adv. versus /i D.S.|.D.C. LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondent ,) Through Ms. Renuka Arora, Adv. CORAM: HON.BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA ORDER , %o 29.07.2009 The petitioner had applied for allotment of alternative plot vide application dated 26th December, 1996 and had deposited Rs. 30,000/-.BV the letter dated 25th Augu st,2002, the respondents returned the cheque of + J Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner along with a covering letter that the L*-. ='- petitioner was not eligible for allotment of alternative land under the relocation scheme, which was meant for industries operating in non- confirm i ng/residentia I a rea. 2. The petitioner claims that he was running a flour mill in the premises bearing number A-24, Jawala Puri, New Delhi-110087. The respondents ds per their policy decision had decided not to allot an industrial plot under the relocation scheme to service industry. 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 i / \\,/ 3. The respondents subsequently as per the newspaper report dated \V 4' 13th December, 2006 modified their earlier policy, dee{*}n and have decided to allot alternative plots to service industries engaged in Laundry, large size flour mills and large size motor workshops. The respondents in their counter affidavit have not disputed and denied'the policy decision taken in 2005 as reported in the newspaper. The said policy decision is not filed on record. 4. Kebping in view the facts of the case, I feel that the request of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot should be re-examined in the light of the policy decision taken in 2006. The respondent, namely, Commissioner of Industries will examine whether the petitioner is covered by the said policy decision and whether the petitioner's flour mill was closed pursuant to the directions of the Suprenie Court. He shall also examine whether the petitioner's request for allotment of alternative land is genuine or motivated on account of increase in land prices. 5. The petitioner will be entitled to a make representation along with relevant documents to the Commissioner of Industries within 3 weeks from today. Th,e petitioner will also be entitled to explain his position to the Commissioner of lndustries or the nominated officer appointed by the Commissioner of Industries. The representation of the petitioner will be -'t \t\-7 ' disposed of by passing a speaking order within a period of four weeks frdf the date of last hearing. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Dasti to counsel for the parties. --t ./( ll I -? -'rr SANJTV KHANN& J. . ., " JULY 29,2OO9 'r- NA v4 I t. -ftaPt'*{v ?'ssT!' fu&feehun U-9 C' \r Jfv