S.R.PAHUJA vs ALOK SWAROOP

THIS complaint has been filed by Sh. S.R. Pahuja, Proprietor of Royal Bakelite Industries, 41, Pitam Pura, Delhi-34 against the respondents Mr. Alok Swaroop, Dy. Director (Industrial), DDA and Sh. S.P. Singhal, Director, DDA. The brief facts of the case are that DDA advertisement in the newspapers during the year 1970 and asked for, applications from the small industrial units functioning in nonconforming areas to be shifted to conforming areas by allotting alternative industrial plots. Smt. Sita Rani, wife of the complainant applied for a plot and also deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as earnest money under this scheme for the allotment of a plot of 400 sq. yards. She, represented to the DDA that she was not allotted any plot under the shifting scheme. At that given time she was alleged to be running her industry at C- 84, Majlis Park, Delhi- 33 which was non-conforming area.

BEING a legal heir of late Smt. Sita Rani the complainant pursued the case, for allotment of alternative plot with DDA but he was not allotted any alternative plot. He alleged that he was discriminated and was not allotted an industrial plot under the shifting scheme. That his factory which was earlier running at C- 84, Majlis Park w.e.f. the year 1970 to 1978 was shifted to another site located at 41, Village Pitam Pura, Delhi-34 which was located within ''Lal Dora''. He has therefore prayed that DDA be directed to allot a plot to the. complainant in industrial area of G.T. Karnal Road or Wazirpur Industrial Area or Rohtak Railway Line Industrial Area etc. and he be allowed to shift the industry there. In the written statement the respondents denied all the allegations of the complainant. They, however, admitted that an advertisement for shifting of miming industries in non-conforming areas and for allotment of alternative plots in conforming areas was issued by DDA during the year 1970. They further stated that the complainant M/s. Royal Bakelite Industries had applied for an industrial plot in lieu of premises No. 149, Municipal Colony, Azad Pur. The petitioner/complainant was intimated by the respondents vide letter dated 29th June 1971 that his application could not be considered as no factory was in existence at the said site in lieu of which an alternative industrial plot could be allotted. The complainant, however, kept on representing and after considering all his pleas his application was rejected.

The complainant later on shifted his business to Majlis Park and sent another representation to the DDA. It was found that this unit was functioning in a conforming area and as such no shifting was involved. The complainant was given valid information vide their letter dated 22.1.73. The complainant''s unit was again informed of such a decision vide their letter F.18(507)/70/SSB(I) dated 11.2.74 and refund of the earnest money was also made vide their letter dated 15.4.84. It was submitted by the respondents that at the time of applying for alternative industrial plot the petitioner was not having a valid licence for running the said industry from the M.C.D. The respondents stated that the case of the petitioner was rejected after due examination of the documents produced by the unit and also inspection of the site. Sh. S.R. Pahuja, the complainant, filed an affidavit to support his version wherein he has repeated the averments made in the complaint.

WE have heard the parties at length and gone through the affidavits and other documentary evidence filed by the parties. According to the complainant himself the DDA had started this scheme in the year 1970 and an advertisement to this effect for shifting of industries from non-conforming to conforming areas in Delhi was issued. According to the statement on oath made by respondent Sh. Alok Swaroop and copies of the letters which have been referred to in the written statement of the respondent and also placed on record the case of the petitioner was rejected as early as 1971 and even his earnest money was returned on 15.4.74. In view of this documentary evidence the instant claim was highly belated and it is not understood as to what was the complainant doing during this long period of about more than 16 years when his case was rejected and even the earnest money was seturned to him. It is a well settled proposition of law that such stale claims are not to be entertained. In this regard we rely on the observations of the National Commission in Cases M/s. Oswal Fine Arts v. H.M.T. Madras reported as I (1991) CPJ 330 (NC). and M/s. Stereo Craft v. Monotype India Ltd. reported as I (1991) CPJ 111 (NC). The complaint is liable to be rejected on this short legal ground. Even otherwise coming to the merits of the case it has been proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the unit was not in possession of a Municipal Licence and was not in existence at the old site from 1966 as has been claimed by the petitioner. This fact is substantiated from the bank certificate submitted by the complainant himself which indicated that the Bank Account was opened only on 15.7.67. This fact was further supported from the report of the Assistant Town Planner dated 28.5.71 on record. The complainant has also relied on the copy of the licence No. 20208 issued by M.C.D. The date of issue of this licence is 21.3.76 but the licence has not been issued retrospectively. The version of the respondent that the unit was not functioning prior to 31.12.66 therefore stands substantiated.

IN view of the above factual position we find no hesitation to accept the stand of the respondents that the application for allotment of alternative site by the complainant was rejected by the respondents on account of the fact that the unit had not been established prior to 1966 which decision of the respondents was within the policy and advertisement dated 8.9.70. The complainant had quoted the names of two units M/s. Jai Bharat Press and M/s. Malhotra Engineering Works who had been allotted alternative sites by the DDA. On going through the documents and having heard the arguments on this point we find no material evidence which could lead us to the conclusion that discripination has been made in the case of the petitioner. Both the above mentioned units had fulfilled the conditions and only after due satisfaction the DDA had allotted them alternative sites. During the course of arguments our attention was also drawn to the Lal Dora Certificate No. 687/SDM/Kot/80 dated 9.5.80. This certificate has been issued by the Dy. Commissioner Delhi Office in favour of one Sh. Kul Shashi Raj s/o Sh. Dev Raj R/o House No. 41, Village Pitam Pura Delhi A scrutiny of the record further reveals that the petitioner has nowhere explained as to what was the relation of Sh. Kul Shashi Raj with the petitioner or with Smt. Sita Rani, the deceased wife of the petitioner. This document was thus irrelevant and no benefit could acme to the complainant on considering this certificate. The complainant, Sh. Pahuja, has mentioned at para 8 of his petition that his factory which was running from 1970 to 1978 at C-84, Majlis Park, was shifted to Lal Dora at 41, Village Pitam Pura in the year 1979. When this version of the claim is examined in context of the Lal Dora Certificate issued in the name of one Sh. Kul Shashi Raj s/o Sh. Dev Raj there appears no conformity in the claim of the petitioner. In view of the above discussed facts and over-whelming documentary evidence which indicated that DDA had rejected the application of the complainant after due consideration of all facts and within the policy guidelines involve at the relevant time we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that there was no merit in the claim made by the petitioner.

AS has been discussed ibid this complaint even otherwise could not be considered being time barred. The result is that the complaint stands rejected. No order as to costs. Complaint rejected.