EMKAY EXPORTERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Emkay Exporters (P.) Ltd. and its Managing Director Shri V. Bhaskaran have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the legality of the order passed by Shri M. L. Mehta, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, on February 15,1980,declining their application seeking discharge for an offence under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (the Act).

(2.) The petitioners are being prosecuted by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") offence under Section 14 of the Act on the allegation that premises bearing No. B-55, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, are being put to a non-conforming use by them as' an office of the Company whereas the building can only be used for residential purpose as per the Master Plan/Zonal Plan of Delhi.

(3.) The facts leading to the prosecution are that the petitioner-Company is carrying on the business of manufacture and export of garments. Its registered office is at B-55, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. This is an admitted fact. The running of the office in the said residential premises in contravention of the Master Plan/Zonal Plan of Delhi, is also not in controversy. The petititioners' case, however, is that the Authority had permitted them to carry on the business at the said premises by imposing certain conditions which they have fulfilled. They were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 with the Authority with an undertaking to the effect that they would stop the misuser as soon as a commercial plot was allotted to them by either of the Authories. namely, Delhi Development Authority (DDA)/ New Okhla Industrial Development Area (NOIDA), and the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (DSTDC), Accordingly, the petitioners had applied to the Authority on April 15, 1976, for an allotment of an industrial plot vide Annexure 'C'. In reply they received a letter from DSIDC that the Company has been selected as an Enterpreneur and were being considered for allotment of the shed. They were asked to deposit certain amounts, which they have done. Thereafter, the Authority asked the petitioners to give an undertaking that the amount of Rs. 10.000.00 which they had deposited would be liable to be forfeited if they did not shift to a conforming area after the sought tor accommodation was made available to them by the D.D.A. or NOIDA vide Annexure 'F'. The undertaking asked for has also been furnished by the petitioners to the Authority.