Shri Manjit Singh vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Gita Mittal, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking consideration for allotment of alternative plots in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Samaipur Badli, Delhi-42 in lieu of workshops and spare part shops being carried on in the Roshanara Area Road, Delhi pursuant to a scheme offered by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the respondents herein.

The facts giving rise to the present petition are in a narrow campus and are briefly noticed hereafter. It appears that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi issued a public notice dated 14th March, 1984 in the national daily, the Indian Express inviting applications from bonafide transporters, workshop owners and spare part dealers functioning in the Gulabi Bagh area and the Roshanara Road area and other congested areas in the city to register themselves for allotment of plots in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. The MCD was inviting applications for consideration for allotment of 225 plots of 200 and 400 sq. mts. for godown purposes; 225 plots of 110, 220 sqm and 400 sqm for workshop purposes and another 1100 small plots for shops etc after satisfying the needs of those registered in the year 1976 with it. The last date for registration was notified as 31st March, 1984. The applicants were required to deposit forms alongwith a bank draft of Rs. 25000/- for godown and workshop plots and Rs. 15000/- for small plots meant for shops etc. Allotment was to be effectuated by a draw of lots.

The petitioner No. 2 Shri Daljit Singh became a member of a union registered as the Delhi, MP, Bombay Truck Operators Union on 19th March, 1984. This union filed a writ petition in this Court which was registered as W.P. (C) No. 945/1984 on 28th March, 1984. The writ petitioner had challenged the amount demanded by the respondents as being unreasonable and unfair and had prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the price/rate and the area of the plots declared to be allotted to petitioners on the basis of earlier policies declared and assurances given to the petitioners. In this writ petition by an order passed on 30th March, 1984, the court directed the petitioners in the writ petition to register themselves on payment of Rs. 100 per sq. mts. with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It was also directed that the respondents would not insist on the deposit of the amount as indicated by them in the advertisement and that instead it would accept the deposit at the rate directed by the court.

The writ petition points out that Shri Manjeet Singh the petitioner No. 1 who was carrying on the business of workshops and spare part shop in the name and style of M/s Sunder Motor Repairing Works at 8270, Roshanara Road, Delhi 110007 became a member of the Delhi, MP, Bombay Truck Operators Union on 31st March, 1984. Shri Manjeet Singh has claimed that he had 90% share in the firm and had got prepared a pay order dated 31st March, 1984 from Vijaya Bank for depositing the same with the respondents for allotment of the plot. The application of the petitioner No. 1 was assigned file No. 117 by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 21st April, 1984.

So far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, he has claimed that he was carrying on business under the name and style of Royal Tyres House at 8488 Abdullah Beg Ki Gali, Jaina Building, Roshanara Area Road Delhi 110007. The petitioner No. 2 has submitted that he had a branch at the premises being run at No. 8420, Roshanara Road, Delhi 110007 in the same name and style as well. This petitioner also appears to have applied for allotment of an alternative plot on 21st April, 1984 alongwith the pay order in terms of the order passed by the court on 30th March, 1984. The petitioner No. 2 had opted for a plot measuring 110 sq yards. The application of the petitioner No. 2 was assigned file No. 9.

In the meantime an application which was registered as CM No. 1249/1984 was filed in W.P. (C) No. 945/1984 praying for certain interim directions. By an order passed on 4th February, 1985 this Court directed that the order directing the deposit of amounts at the rate of Rs. 100 per sq.mt. would continue to operate till dismissal of the writ petition. If any additional amount was determined as payable from the petitioners, they would be liable to pay the same. In the meantime, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was at liberty to draw lots from amongst the persons who were registered in the year 1976 and satisfy their needs first. The remaining available plots were directed to be allotted to the petitioners or others who had now registered with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi by 31st March, 1984

The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the payment by the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 100 per sq.mt. for the plots would make them eligible for participation in the draw of lots. Both petitioners have placed several documents including bills of telephone etc and other documents issued by statutory authorities or agencies of the state as evidence in support of their plea, that they were actually carrying on business at the addresses noticed hereinabove.

In addition it has been pointed out by the petitioner No. 1 that the firm, M/s Sunder Motor Repairing Works, a partnership firm, was dissolved by a deed dated 19th June, 1992 and Shri Manjeet Singh petitioner No. 1 became the sole proprietor thereof. As per the dissolution deed in clause 3 that the plot of land which was to be allotted to the firm in lieu of the said shop No. 8270, was agreed to be allotted in the name of the petitioner No. 1 as the sole proprietor of the firm. Shri Gurjeet Singh, the other partner was left with no concern therein. Reliance has been placed by the petitioners on the partnership deed dated 6th July, 1982 and the copy of the dissolution deed dated 19th June, 1992 which has been filed before this Court.

It has further been submitted by the petitioner No. 2 that it was running its business in the premises No. 8488 and 8420 as a tenant. Disputes with the landlord of the premises resulted in initiation of litigation. Thereafter, he surrendered the tenancy rights of the premises No. 8420 in the year 2002 and of the premises No. 8488 in the year 2004. According to the petitioner No. 2 the tenancy of the earlier premises was surrendered in the legitimate expectation that he would soon be getting an alternative plot at the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi for which he had made an application.

The petitioner No. 1 relies on a notice dated 20th April, 2001 issued by the MCD requiring him to appear before the committee with proof of the transport/allied business being carried on by the petitioner so that the case could be processed for allotment of the plots/shops/godowns. The respondents also required proof of income tax and turnover to be produced.

In the meantime W.P. (C) No. 945/1984 filed by the union of which the petitioner No. 1 was a member, was listed for hearing on 13th February, 2003. Inasmuch as none appeared on behalf of the petitioner the court dismissed the writ petition in default and for non-prosecution.

The petitioner No. 2 Shri Manjeet Singh alongwith one Shri Bheem Sain filed an application being CM No. 6930/2006 u/s 151 of the CPC praying for setting aside of the order dated 13th February, 2003 dismissing the W.P. (C) No. 945/1984. However inasmuch as the writ petition had been filed by the union through its president, the court was of the view that the application by these two persons, who were members of the union, petitioner in that writ petition, was not maintainable. Consequently by an order passed on 26th May, 2006 the CM No. 6930/2006 was also dismissed.

In this background the petitioners filed W.P. (C) No. 10046/2006 and 10047/2006 respectively in this Court. A grievance was made by the petitioners that despite the applications having been invited in the year 1984, the respondents had not moved a step towards making the allocations or handing over possession and that they had made exorbitant and arbitrary demands which had been assailed in the writ petition filed by the union in 1984. The petitioners sought a mandamus to the respondents to allot plots to the petitioners in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Samaipur Badli, Delhi.

These writ petitions came up for hearing on 4th July, 2006 when the petitioners sought liberty to withdraw the writ petition to represent to the concerned authorities for allotment of an alternative plot under the scheme. Liberty was sought to approach the court in the event that further grievance was also granted by the court. The writ petitions were thus dismissed as withdrawn.

The petitioners have thereafter repeatedly approached the Municipal Corporation of Delhi through representations dated 13th July, 2006 seeking allotment of the plot. However on failure to receive any kind of response, a query was addressed on 7th November, 2006 by the petitioner No. 1 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking the status of his application and reasons for his reply. The respondents have sent a response dated 28th November, 2006 informing the petitioner that the petitioner No. 1 had failed to deposit the requisite amount on account of earnest money for registration for allotment of a plot in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. The MCD had accepted the lesser amount on account of the interim orders of this Court dated 30th March, 1984 in W.P. (C) No. 945/1984 subject to the official decision of the writ petition. The writ petition having been dismissed in default on 13th February, 2003, the MCD was treating the petitioners in the writ petition including the applicant as having lost their claim for inclusion in the draw of lots for allotment of the plot. It was also informed that the file of the petitioner No. 1 was kept in the records.

The petitioners appear to have approached the MCD thereafter by a legal notice dated 26th February, 2007 enclosing therewith a demand draft dated 21st February, 2007 in the sum of Rs. 19500/- on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 and a demand draft dated 21st February, 2007 in the sum of Rs. 14000/- on behalf of Shri Daljeet Singh petitioner No. 2. These petitioners have contended that in addition to the amounts already deposited, the total payment thus deposited by the petitioners would come to Rs. 25000/- each, rendering them eligible and entitled to a plot of 110 sq.mts. each. It has been asserted that the petitioners are willing to make all balance payments which may be due or payable towards the alternative plots. This writ petition has been filed complaining that the respondents have failed to consider the applications of the petitioners in the light of the orders of this Court dated 4th July, 2006 and that the petitioners are eligible and entitled to be considered for allotment. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Ashok Sapra learned Counsel for the respondents on the pronouncement of this Court reported at Shri Ajit Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority, in support of the prayers in the writ petition. The petitioners have sought issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to place the respective names of petitioners as participants in the general draw of lots for allotment of plots measuring 110 sq.mts.

Mr. Ashok Sapra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that aggrieved by the failure of the respondents to effect the allotment and hold the draw of lots, one of the applicants had filed a contempt petition seeking invocation of contempt proceedings against the respondents which was registered as Cont. Cas. (C) No. 816/2004 entitled Surjit Singh Uppal v. Shri Rajesh Sommal and Ors. complaining of delay in allotment of plots to him. This petition was listed before the court on 23rd May, 2007 when the counsel for the MCD had produced a letter dated 22nd May, 2007 addressed by the Director (Systems) MCD to the Deputy Commissioner pressing that the earliest possible date for the draw of lots could be 25th June, 2007. On a statement that the draw of lots would be conducted on this date, the contempt petition was disposed of.

This writ petition was filed complaining that the respondents would proceed with the draw of lots overlooking the order dated 4th July, 2007 passed in earlier W.P. (C) No. 10046-10047/2006.

The writ petition has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Amit K. Paul standing counsel for the MCD, who has objected that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and the contentions of the petitioners stand rejected in dismissal of W.P. (C) No. 945/1984 and the withdrawal of W.P. (C) No. 10046/2006 & 10047/2006. It has further been contended that the petitioner has no right or cause of action to file this writ petition inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount in terms of the requirement of the scheme notified to the public at large as back as on 14th March, 1984. It has further been contended that there were several applicants who had deposited the full demanded amount of Rs. 25,000/- as back as in 1984 in accordance with the notified schedule and that the petitioners can claim no parity with such applicants basing the claim on the deposit made alongwith the legal notice dated 26th February, 2007. According to the MCD the draw of lots was actually finally held on 3rd July, 2007 and allotments stand effected.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the record, I find that there is no dispute that the MCD had invited applications from bonafide transporters workshop owners, spare part dealers, etc functioning in the Gulabi Bagh or Roshanara Road area and other congested areas of the city who were desirous of getting themselves registered for allotment of plots in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar for allotment of plots of different sizes in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar by a public advertisement which was published in the Indian Express dated 14th March, 1984. The public was clearly notified that they can get themselves registered between 19th and 31st March, 1984 and that the registration forms were available with the Additional Deputy Commissioner, RP Cell of the MCD and would be accepted. There was the specific speculation that the forms were required to be accompanied with a bank draft of Rs. 25000/- for godowns and workshop plots and a bank draft of Rs. 15000/- for small plots and shops etc.

It is an admitted position that the petitioners did not deposit the demanded amounts.

It appears that the respondents however issued another public notice dated 22nd March, 1984 published in the Times of India allowing registrants of the year 1976 who had withdrawn the registration amounts to redeposit the same with the adhoc earnest money.

The petitioners before this Court have admittedly deposited their applications only on 21st April, 1984. The petitioners were both seeking allotment of plots of 110 sqm. and consequently were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 25000/- as per the advertisement.

The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 both appear to have deposited the amount of Rs. 11000/- each only with their applications on 21st April, 1984.

The petitioners have contended that they made the deposit in terms of the interim orders dated 30th March, 1984 passed in W.P. (C) No. 945/1984 Delhi, MP, Bombay Truck Operators Union v. UOI whereby the court had directed the respondents to register the petitioners on payment of Rs. 100/- per sq. mts. It has also been directed that the respondents would not insist on the deposit as indicated by them in the advertisement and would accept deposit at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. mts.

So far as Shri Manjeet Singh the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he was not even a member of the Delhi, MP, Bombay Truck Operators Union at the time of passing of these orders. He had become a member of the Union only on 31st March, 1984. It is not clear from the record placed before this Court as to whether the petitioner No. 2 was a member. Even assuming that both these petitioners were valid members of this Union and made the deposit in terms of the order dated 30th March, 1984 of the Division Bench, this writ petition was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on 13th February, 1993. Shri Manjeet Singh the petitioner No. 1 is stated to have filed CM No. 6930/2006 on 20th April, 2006 praying for setting aside of the order dated 13th February, 2003. Even this application was dismissed by the court on 29th May, 2006. The petitioners have thereafter filed two separate writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 10046 & 10047/2006 respectively which were withdrawn on 4th July, 2006 to make a representation to the respondents for allotment of an alternative plot. From the above facts, it is writ large on the record that the petitioners have not deposited the demanded amounts in terms of the advertisement published by the MCD inviting applications for registration as back as on 14th March, 1984. Even assuming that the writ petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the interim orders passed by the Division Bench on 30th March, 1984 in W.P. (C) No. 945/1984, this order ceased to operate when the writ petition was dismissed on 13th February, 2003. Despite knowledge of the dismissal of the writ petition the petitioners still failed to make payment of the demanded amounts. It remains questionable as to whether any rights could have flown in favour of the petitioner on account of the operation of the interim orders.

Even dismissal of the restoration application filed by the petitioner No. 1 on 26th May, 2006 did not motivate the petitioners to make payment of the amounts. The petitioners still filed fresh writ petitions assailing the amounts demanded by the respondents in the W.P.(C) No. 10046-10047/2006 which were finally withdrawn on 4th July, 2006. The petitioners sat over the matter for almost six months thereafter and opted to send certain amounts unilaterally to the MCD with the legal notice dated 26th February, 2007.

The advertisement issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 14th March, 1984 had stipulated the dates for registration as well as the amount which was payable towards earnest money by the applicants. The counter affidavit has stated that there were several applicants who not only got themselves registered but also made payment of the demanded amounts in terms of the advertisement. The petitioners have failed to abide by the stipulations of the MCD and have failed to abide by the financial discipline notified to the applicants in order to be validly registered for allotment of a plot. Not only was the application grossly belated but was not accompanied by the amount which was payable.

The petitioner No. 1 was not even a member of the Delhi, MP, Bombay Truck Operators Union which had filed the W.P. (C) No. 945/1984 when the interim orders dated 30th March, 1984 were passed. The applications of the petitioners were filed in April, 2004. The amounts which have been deposited in 2007 have been deposited unilaterally without there being any demand from the MCD for the same. In these facts certainly the petitioners cannot be permitted to steal a march over those persons who have deposited the full amount as demanded by the MCD. Even if it were to be held that the petitioner was required to deposit the amount after adjudication in W.P. (C) No. 945/1984, there is no explanation as to why no amount was deposited after the dismissal of the writ petition on 13th February, 2003.

In the counter affidavit which has been filed, the MCD has stated that it has held the draw of lots on 13th July, 2007.

The petitioners have placed reliance on the pronouncement of this Court reported at Shri Ajit Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority, In this case an allotment was made on 14th April, 1970. The petitioner had made full payment towards this demand. However DDA had delayed handing over of possession of the plots on account of certain disputes relating to costing of the plots. Long after the allotment and payment by the petitioner, the DDA had unilaterally cancelled the allotment of the petitioner on the ground that at the time when the DDA was proposing to hand over the possession, the petitioner was not found at the location in question. It was this decision of the DDA which was struck down by the court holding that the same was unreasonable and arbitrary.

The present case has no parity on either facts or the legal principles laid down in the pronouncement of this Court in Ajit Singh v. DDA (supra) which therefore has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. The application of the petitioners was grossly belated and the petitioners have also not effected payment of the amount demanded by the MCD. No allotment has been effected in favour of the present petitioners. This was not so in Ajit Singh''s case.

For the same reasons, the rejection of the petitioner''s representation by the MCD, communicated by the letter dated 31st August, 2007 which has been handed over during the course of hearing is also misconceived and is hereby rejected.

In this factual situation, certainly the action of the MCD in refusing to consider the petitioner''s application in the draw of lots for allotment of plots cannot be faulted on any legally tenable grounds. The petitioner''s claim rests on the unilateral and arbitrary deposit of the amount with the legal notice dated 26th February, 2007 without there being any demand from the MCD in respect of the same. Such deposit was hopelessly belated and the petitioner''s can base no right or claim thereof.

For all these reasons, I find no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed.