DINESH LALWANI Vs. D S I D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this application seeking for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, wherein the appellant prayed for a direction that the allotment of the industrial plot by the respondent-D. S. I. D. C should be restored in favour of the appellant and possession be handed over to him.

(2.) THE appellant was an applicant in a Scheme for Relocation of Industries formulated by the respondent Corporation for allotment of an alternative industrial plot. The appellant was a successful applicant. An allotment letter was issued to him, which was subsequently revised under letter dated 23. 10. 2000. The said letter was on the subject of allotment of industrial plot under the relocation Scheme. The appellant was intimated that his application for allotment of industrial plot for shifting from his existing industrial area is accepted and that a decision has been taken to allot him a plot as per his entitlement in the Bawana Industrial Area. The appellant was directed to deposit 50% of the revised estimated cost of the plot, which was at Rs. 4,200/-per sq. mtr. within three months. Taking a stand that the appellant had failed to abide by the directions, his allotment was cancelled by the respondent-D. S. I. D. C. .

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid action on the part of the appellant, the aforesaid writ petition was filed in this Court, which was considered by the learned Single Judge and by the impugned judgment and order the same was dismissed. The findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge are under challenge in this appeal, on which we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is submitted by the appellant that the appellant has already deposited 50% of the amount, which is lying deposited with the respondent. However, no such plea appears to have been taken by the appellant before the respondent. In fact, the learned Single Judge has examined the records and on appreciation thereof has held that the appellant did not even pay 50% of the value of the plot, which he was required to deposit in terms of the allotment letter. There was an order by the Supreme Court also in which direction was issued that all allottees who were to pay 50% of the amount should be allowed to deposit the said amount by a particular date, i. e. , July 31, 2004 and if the amount is not paid, the said allotment should be cancelled. Pursuant to aforesaid order of the Supreme Court, a wide publication of the said order was given in which it was mentioned that a number of applicants who were not eligible for allotment of plots under the Relocation Scheme were visiting the office for getting clarification, and in that view of the matter the clarification was being issued through the public notice published in the newspapers that certain categories of units were not eligible under the Scheme as per the Supreme Court directions, inter alia, being those applicants who had been allotted plots in the year 2000 but had deposited less than 50% of the cost up to 31st March, 2001 and had been allowed payment of 50% up to 31st July, 2004 despite the aforesaid publication, 50% of the amount in terms of the allotment letter was not deposited by the appellant and, therefore, his allotment came to be cancelled by the respondent. The public notice was issued by the D. S. I. D. C. on 26. 01. 2001, which also refers to the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court passed on 24. 01. 2000. Although the aforesaid orders were passed on 24. 01. 2000 and the public notice was issued on 26. 01. 2001, no writ petition was filed for long three years by the appellant and only thereafter, the aforesaid writ petition was filed on 02. 09. 2004 Since the appellant did not deposit the required amount of 50% in terms of the stipulation in the letter dated 23. 10. 2000 and also in terms of the public notice issued on 26. 01. 2001, therefore, the learned Single Judge held that no equity could be shown to the appellant and the writ petition cannot be entertained and must accordingly be dismissed.