DAVINDER SINGH Vs. GOVT. OF N.C.T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court is carrying on business in a non - conforming area at NZ -42, New Vishnu Garden, Khayala, New Delhi. On 3.10.1996, the petitioner applied for allotment of an industrial plot under the relocation scheme of the respondents vide application number 2261 and deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/ - (sixty thousand only) as earnest money. Vide letter dated 22.3.2000, the respondents informed the petitioner that though the Government had, through advertisement published in newspaper in July, 1999 and September, 1999, given an opportunity to all the applicants to file an appeal after ascertaining the status of their case on the specified telephone numbers, he had not filed any appeal / representation in the matter. It was further stated in the said communication that the petitioner was not found eligible for allotment of industrial plot/flat under the relocation scheme since he had not submitted any document to establish manufacturing activity prior to 19.4.1996 at the factory address given by him in the application,. He was accordingly advised to approach DSIIDC for refund of the earnest money, deposited by him along with his application. Vide letter dated 9.2.2001, the petitioner claims to have requested the Commissioner of Industries, Delhi to take back his file from the office of DSIIDC and reconsider his case since he was interested in allotment of the industrial plot and not in refund.

(2.) VIDE reply dated 8.7.2007, furnished to the petitioner under Right to Information act, he was informed that his application for allotment under relocation scheme was rejected on the ground that (i) the address in the sales - tax form was different from the factory address given in the application form;(ii) No Government document to prove manufacturing activity prior to 19.4.1996 at the given factory address in the application form was submitted. He was further informed that the earnest money was refunded to him in the year 2000. Being aggrieved from refusal of the respondent to allot any plot to him, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following relief: -

(3.) 10.2000. 4. The petitioner, who is present in Court, admits that he had received the refund through his bank. He states that he had taken a loan of Rs.45,000/ - from the bank in order to deposit earnest money, amounting to Rs.60,000/ - with the respondent and the bank, after deducting the amount of the loan, paid the balance amount to him.