LEKH RAJ GROVER Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order rejectingthis application for an industrial plot in Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase I & II,New Delhi and further seeks a direction to the respondents to allot him a plotmeasuring 200 Sq. mts. at Rs. 200.00 per sq. mt" in the said Industrial Area.

(2.) Petitioner has been carrying on industrial activity under the name of M/s.Apsara Industries (earlier, the name was M/s. Cheap Stationery Supply Company)at premises No. K-30, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The industry was started in the year1973. The place where the petitioner has been running his industry is in a "Non-Conforming Area" CNCA' for short). Locating the industries in NCA and theircontinued presence in those areas are opposed to the master plan and thereforethose industries had to be shifted, failing which the industrialists faced prosecu-tion. The Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') came forward with a scheme toallot industrial plot to those industrialists elsewhere. In the year 1976, the DDAannounced a scheme under which the industries in NCA or the areas which wereunder acquisition for various public purposes, were given an opportunity to applyfor industrial plots in other areas developed or to be developed for the saidpurpose. The scheme stated that it was the last opportunity given to the industriesto close down in the NCA and seek plots under the scheme. The initial announce-ment required the applicants to deposit the specified earnest money only. Subse-quently, in July, 1976 another scheme (or a scheme supplemented to the earlier scheme) was announced, under which the applicants were required to deposit aspecified percentage of the price of the plot on different dates. Petitioner haddeposited Rs. 500.00 an earnest money earlier: under the July 1976 Scheme, he,deposited a sum of Rs. 12,000.00 being the appropriate percentage of the value of theplot applied for. Petitioner was anxious to get the industrial plot; but, the localitywhere plots are to be found, were not developed at all by the DDA for several years.In the circumstances, petitioner sought refund of the advance paid by him, as pera letter dated 20.10.1977. In the letter petitioner specifically requested the DDA tokeep with it the earnest money and further added a 'note' stating that as and whenan industrial plot is made available, he would deposit the requisite amount, onintimation from the DDA. Petitioner also stated that the deposit already kept withit by the petitioner was not earning any interest and DDA had not developedappropriate plots for allotments.On 25.4.1978, a sum of Rs. 12,500.00 was refunded to the petitioner. InSeptember 1979, petitioner came to know that industrial plots were getting readyfor allotment. In fact, the factory of the petitioner was surveyed on 26.8.1979 by theSurveyor ; hence, petitioner wrote on 7.9.1979 requesting to consider his casesympathetically and sought allotment of a plot; petitioner requested for an instruction to deposit the 30% of the value or any other suitable sum. On 12.9.1979 thepetitioner wrote again explaining the reasons for seeking the refund of the earlieradvance paid by him and requested the allotment of a plot to him. Petitionerenclosed a Bank Draft for Rs. 12,500.00 in favour of the DDA. The draft was notreturned to the petitioner but was in the office of the DDA without encashment. On28.2:1980, DDA had informed the General Secretary of Multi Small Scale IndustriesAssociation (of which petitioner was a member), that "the cases of allotment ofindustrial plots to those who had applied in the year 1976 and had also deposited30% of the premium is under the active consideration of the Delhi DevelopmentAuthority and the decisions taken in this regard will be intimated to you in duecourse of time." Another letter dated 18.8.1980, to the Association stated that therehas been a decision to allot industrial plots to nearly 300 applicants. On 19.7.1980,decision to allot the plots to the applicant was announced through another letter tothe aforesaid Association. On 24.5.1980 petitioner made one more representationseeking allotment of a plot pointing out the deposits made alongwith the letterdated 19.9.1979. In another representation dated 10.6.1980, petitioner pointed outthat his factory was surveyed on 26.8.1979. On 22.10.1981, another letter waswritten by the petitioner. This was repeated on 2.8.1982. One more reminder wassent on 29.5.1985. On 21.4.1987 petitioner deposited bank slip for Rs. 12,500.00which was banker draft, because, it was realised that the bank draft given on12.9.1979 was not encashed by the DDA and this amount stood blocked without useto anyone; as the earlier draft became useless, petitioner deposited, again, a sumof Rs. 12,500.00 on 9.4.1987, and this time the draft was encashed by the DDA.Thereafter on 21.4.1987, the bank slip for Rs. 12,500.00 was deposited.

(3.) However, by a letter dated 31.7.1987 (Annexure D-7) the petitioner wasinformed that his case was considered, but the request of the petitioner could notbe "acceded to at this late stage" as the petitioner had already taken the refund ofthe amount deposited in the year 1976.On 1.7.1988, the petitioner sought the refund of the amount of Rs. 12,500.00deposited by him on 21.4.1987. Petitioner once again sought its refund on10.8.1988, this was repeated on 9.9.1988. Respondents did not care to reply to theseletters; the amount deposited with the respondents continued with them, eventhough, normally, it should have been promptly refunded when petitioner'sapplication for allotment was rejected. In the circumstances, the petitioner, assertsthat the rejection of the application was not acted upon. Petitioner seeks adirectionto the respondents to allot a plot to him. During the pendency of the writ petitionpetitioner wrote two letters to the respondents seeking allotment of a plot; but themighty silence of the DDA and its officers could not be shaken.