GOLDEN HOSIERY MILLS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of the allotment of a site made in his favour by the respondent. According to the petitioner he is carrying on business of running an industrial unit of hosiery at Nicholson Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. He further states that the respondent decided to shift the said industry from the walled city to different industrial areas, and in these circumstances the petitioner applied to the respondents for an alternative industrial plot. The application was made in October. 1966. The petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs. 1,250.00 towards premium for the industrial plot. It is further stated that in January, 1969 the Land Sales Officer of the first respondent informed the petitioner that there has been a decision to allot a plot in favour of the petitioner in Block D of the Okhla Industrial area and that the exact plot to be allotted will be decided by draw of lots. The petitioner was further informed that the draw of lots will be held on 30.12.1969. The petitioner further asserts that plot No.97was allotted in the draw of lots held as aforesaid. On 21.1.1970 petitioner was informed of this allotment. Petitioner was also informed that demand notice would be sent to him in due course. In August 1971 petitioner was asked to submit a copy of the challan regarding the amount of earnest money deposited which was complied with by the petitioner. However, petitioner received a letter enclosing a cheque for Rs.l.250.00 (Annexurelll). The petitioner was surprised and protested. In the letter written by the petitioner on 28.12.1971 he stated that the first respondent has rejected the application on one side and at the same time allotted a plot on the other side. Petitioner pointed out that there seem to be two files relating to the petitioner's case and there was some mistake committed by the respondents. The petitioner has not produced any document for the subsequent period after this letter dated 28.12.1971 till 13.12.1976. However, in the writ petition he states that he was pursuing the matter and on 13.12.1976 the petitioner was asked to submit copy of the challan etc. with copies of other correspondence. Thereafter the petitioner was asked to attend the office on any working day. Petitioner also submitled several documents in March 1978. But on 9.7.1980 (Annexure VIII) petitioner was informed by the respondents that the location of the unit is household industry and such an industry is not required to be p73 shifted. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any alternative allotment. Similar is another letter dated 5.9.1980 in which however, petitioner was asked to substantiate his statement that there were a number of units of similar nature who have been given alternative allotment. Petitioner responded on 24.9.1980. In this letter he stated that there are similar traders of hosiery units who are running in Pahari Dhiraj and Sadar Bazar etc. who have been allotted industrial plots in Wazirpur Industrial Area as well as in Okhl Industrial Area. According to the petitioner, his case is similar to those cases. Petitioner also gave 21 names who are allegedly the adjoining units of hosiery goods holding household licenses, who have been allotted industrial plots by the first respondent in Okhla and Wazirpur Industrial areas.

(2.) On 23.2.1981, petitioner was informed that his case has been examined and allotment has been approved 'at commercial rate +20% '. Petitioner was asked to send his consent at the abovesaid rates. On 9.3.1981 petitioner wrote back staling that he was agreeable to pay the 20% commercial price of the plot noted as per the letter dated 23.2.1981. Petitioner requested that demand-cum-allotment letter may beissued, to enable the petitioner to deposit the amount. What happened thereafter is not forthcoming but on 8.2.1983 the first respondent wrote to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3,60,944.98 within 15 days to Like further action in respect of the subject plot No. D-97, Okhia Industrial Area, Phase-1. On 10.2.1983 the petitioner wrote to the Finance Member of the First respondent protestingagainsttherateofRs.713.33perSq.Mtr. The petitioner wrote that in respect of similar cases Delhi Development Authority has charged the premium @ Rs.37.00 per Sq. Yd. in the similar industrial area. Petitioner further asserted that his factory was already running in the non-conforming area and therefore, the question of charging the rate at the commercial price for the year 1980 did not arise and that the plot was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1969-70. Petitioner requested that old rate of Rs.37.00 per Sq. Yd. may be charged. Petitioner was informed by the second respondent on 30.6.1983 that it was not possible to reduce the rate and that petitioner was requested to deposit a sum of Rs-3,60,944.98. The petitioner wrote back on 25.7.1983 requesting that the premium should be at the old rates for the year 1969-70. Once again the petitioner was asked by the second respondent on 9.8.1983 to make the deposit as demanded earlier. Petitioner did not comply with the request but wrote back on 19.8.1983 asserting that similar units were allotted plots at the old rates. Petitioner mentioned 11 instances. The matter was under consideration thereafter. The petitioner pursued the matter with the higher authorities also including the Lt. Governor. On 26.10.1988 the petitioner was informed that hosiery industry was not a hazardous or obnoxious industry and therefore its shifting was not considered essential. In the circumstances the petitioner was told that his request cannot be granted. Petitioner on 10.11.1988 addressed aletter to the second respondent wherein he staled that he never applied for the allotment of an alternative industrial plot but requested for ullotment of an industrial plot from non-conforming to conforming premises and that in view of the Master Plan programme question of cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner did not arise. The petitioner reiterated that he was willing to pay the cost of the plot at the rate applicable to the year 1968-69. Subsequently the petitioner has approached this court for appropriate reliefs.

(3.) Petitioner contended that he is entitled to a plot at the rate prevailing in the year 1969, when in fact, he was allotted a plot. According to the petitioner, several others carrying on similar industry as that of the petitioner in the same area, were allotted sites in industrial areas without charging commercial rates and therefore, petitioner also should be treated similarly: denial of such a benefit to the petitioner will be discriminatory. It was also contended that the respondents were estopped from pleading that petitioner is ineligible for allotment of the site at the concessional rate, having already accepted his eligibility as early as the year 1969. According to the petitioner, the present place where he is carrying on the industrial activities is not a proper place and the said activities affect the residents of the locality and in the circumstances, petitioner is expected to shift this industry to aplace set apart for industrial activities.