Paradise Engineering Works vs D.S.I.I.D.C.

Sanjiv Khanna, J.—Delhi State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., (Respondent for short) has produced original file before us. We have examined the file and on the basis of the material on the file, we are disposing of the present appeal.

The Appellant, Surender Dutt Gaur, sole proprietor of Paradise Engineering Works, claims that he was running a manufacturing unit at G-15, Rampura, Delhi. By application N. 37074, he had applied for alternative industrial plot at Bawana by depositing Rs. 1,20,000/-. This fact is admitted by the Respondent. It is the case of the Respondent that the Appellant was allotted alternative industrial plot measuring 250 sq. mtrs. at Bawana Industrial Complex and allotment-cum-eligibility letter dated 8th December, 2001 was issued. The Appellant does not dispute this letter. Thus, the Appellant admits that he was aware and had knowledge that an industrial plot measuring 250 sq. mtrs. was allotted to him in 2001.

In paragraph 3(d) of the writ petition, the Appellant had stated as under:

d) That during the period 2006-2007 the Petitioner came to know from the website of the DSIDC that Plot No. 19, Pocket-G, Sector-2, Bawana measuring 250 sq. mts. has been allotted by the DSIIDC to the Petitioner. But no such Allotment Letter from DSIIDC was received by the Petitioner. However, after waiting for Allotment Letter for some time, the Petitioner visited DSIIDC office a number of times to ascertain the status of allotment so that the Petitioner could make the balance payment. The officials of DSIIDC told that the Petitioner''s unit falls under the Local Commercial Unit; some changes are going to be made regarding the policy matter of local commercial units and the Petitioner will be intimated about the change in the near future and that there were so many cases like the Petitioner which were to be decided/affected.

The aforesaid paragraph shows that the Appellant came to know about allotment of plot No. 19, Pocket G, Sector 2, Bawana, but claims that he did not receive the allotment letter. It is pleaded that the officials of the Respondent had informed him that the Appellant''s unit was under the Local commercial unit and policy changes would be intimated.

Original file produced by the Respondent before us shows that the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 21st July, 2006 was issued in the name of the Appellant and was sent by registered post, certificate of posting and ordinary post at GF-15, Rampura, Delhi 35. The said address is mentioned on the application form and other documents which were filed by the Appellant with the allotment application. The same address is also mentioned in the memo of parties to the appeal. The letter sent by registered post was received back un-delivered but the other letters which were sent under the certificate of posting and by ordinary post were not received back. The report of the postal authorities returning back the registered envelope states; "no such number on this address; return to sender for complete address".

In view of the aforesaid position including the pleadings in the writ petition itself, it is not possible to accept the contention of the Appellant that he was not aware of the allotment made in 2006. It is also not possible to accept the contention that inspite of visiting the office of the Respondent, he was not aware and did not have knowledge about the allotment. The allotment letter dated 21st July, 2006, required the Appellant to pay the balance amount calculated @ Rs. 4200/- per sq. mtr. after adjustment of the money already deposited and interest accrued thereon. The deposit was to be made within 60 days of issue of demand-cum-allotment letter. Payment could be made within 45 days thereafter, subject to payment of interest @ 18% p.a. but no further extension was to be granted. In case of non-payment, the allotment of plot was to be cancelled.

Respondent has also produced before us public notices in form of advertisements published in newspapers calling upon the applicants to make payment. Vide advertisement dated 9th May, 2008, applicants were given extended opportunity to make payment with 18% interest with penalty of Rs. 5000/-. The last extended date was 30th June, 2008. The Appellant did not make payment in terms of the said advertisements or even after the advertisement dated 9th May, 2008.

The Appellant claims that he had written a letter dated 28th July, 2008, to the Respondent stating that as per the information available on the official website, he had been allotted a plot but he had not received any allotment letter. This letter is not available in the records of the DSIIDC. We need not go into the said question but what is apparent is that the Appellant was aware that he had been allotted the plot in question. It is difficult to accept and believe that in these circumstances, the Appellant was not aware about the last date of payment which was upto 30th June, 2008. Apparently Appellant was sitting on the fence and waiting.

There was complete silence between July, 2008 till 9th June, 2010, when a show cause notice was issued by the Respondent for cancelling the allotment. This activated the Appellant and on not getting positive response, he filed the writ petition challenging the order or rather the show cause notice dated 1st June, 2010. It is clear from the facts stated above that the Appellant is guilty of delay and laches. The contention of the Appellant that he was not aware of the allotment and was not responsible and liable for the default in making payment does not merit acceptance. Pleadings and letters/correspondence shows that he had knowledge. Conduct of the Appellant dis-entitles him to claim allotment and any relief in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. It is apparent that the Appellant wants to encase on the increase in the prices of land, though initially he had lost interest and has failed to make payment inspite of ample opportunities.

In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.