Back
1997 Supreme(SC) 935
1997(6) Supreme 305
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority etc. -Appellant
versus
M/s Ambitious Enterprises & Anr. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4321 of 1997
With
C.A. Nos. 4322-4331 of 1997
(@ SLP (C) Nos. 10058/95, 10819/95, 10870/95, 9028/95, 9098/95, 9031/95, 9123/95, 9369/95, 9370/95 & 9567/95)
All Decided on 9-7-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Jaitley, Sr. Advocate and Mr. V.B. Saharya, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Jain, Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Mr. A.B. Rohtagi, Sr. Advocates, Mr. S.P. Sharma, Mr. Harish Malhotra, Mr. Pradeep Kr. Bakshi, Mr. Ambrish Kumar, Mr. R.S. Dewan and Mr. Pramod Dayal, Advocates.
Headnote:Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957-Section 416-Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981-Rule 6(v)-Rejection of application for allotment of industrial plots-Challenged-Decision of DDA to allot land to industries functioning in non-conforming areas or areas under acquisition in the conforming industrial areas developed by DDA-Appellants applied, deposited earnest money as well as premium as required-Applications rejected as applicants did not possess municipal licence their industries were not situated in non-conforming areas-Whether DDA was justified in imposing a condition for an applicant to hold a valid municipal licence?-(Yes)-Respondents relying on ad hoc licences to claim that they were running trade/factory from 1976- Whether claims can be allowed?
Held that the condition imposed by the DDA for allotment of industrial plot to a person who was having a valid licence under the MCD Act was neither arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational. A person who is running a trade without a valid licence under Section 416 of the MCD Act is committing an offence which is a continuing offence and he cannot be put at the same pedestal with a person who is law abiding and is having a valid licence. Otherwise it will be putting a premium on illegality. That condition of holding of valid MCD licence imposed by DDA would be legal even if the number of plots available is more than the applicants. It is not material if the notice inviting applications was silent on this aspect of the matter and the application form which was prescribed used the words if any . (Para 9)
Further held : It is not disputed that the parties who were not having municipal licences on the date of their respective applications have been barred from getting an industrial plot altogether. They are, however, left to fend for themselves either by buying an industrial plot in public auction or by a private purchase. As per the policy the DDA does not want to allot the industrial plots to them on pre-determined rates as they fell outside the policy made by it. In terms of this policy it is also not material as to from what time in fact an industrial unit had been working and may be much prior to the date of application for allotment of industrial plot. No plots had been allotted prior to the coming into force of the Nazul Rules and once these Rules, which are statutory, came into force no allotment could have been made outside and in contravention of those Rules. If we see the relevant part of Rule 6(v) it will apply to those industrialists who are required to shift their industries from non-conforming areas to conforming areas under the Master Plan. It is correct that some of the respondents were granted municipal licences under ad hoc licensing policy, 1982 from a retrospective date and it would appear, licence fee has also been charged from the back date. DDA has not accepted these ad hoc licences as per condition of its policy there should be a valid municipal licence on the date of the application. It has been pointed out that those parties who wanted ad hoc licences had to give an indemnity bond. This ad hoc licensing policy was issued by the MCD on consideration by the Delhi Administration that "at length the problem of industrial units functioning in non-conforming areas unauhorisedly without any licence and had suggested that the units set up before August 15, 1982 which are not obnoxious and hazardous should be granted licence in terms and conditions finalised and conveyed in this behalf". (Para 12)
We have also examined the reports of the committee; objections of the respondents; policy and other records of these appeals, and we find that except for the cases of M/s. Vijay Steel Products and Anr. SLP (C) No. 9028/95, Kimat Baldev Chhiber & Anr. SLP(C) No. 9123/95 and M/s. Chawla Sons (Regd.) & Anr. SLP(C) No. 9098/95 other cases do not merit consideration thus holding that the respondents therein are not entitled to alternative plots. (Para 13)
JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Special leave granted.
2. These 11 appeals are directed against the judgment dated July 29, 1994 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court passed in appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated May 27, 1994. The judgment of the learned single Judge decided as many as 25 writ petitions, while he allowed 14 of them 11 were dismissed. Delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA ) had filed Letters Patent Appeals against the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petitions, 11 of these are before us.
3. The writ petitioners were aggrieved by the order of the DDA rejecting their applications for allotment of plots for which they had applied in terms of public notice dated February 8, 1976 and they had also deposited the earnest money and had further paid 30 of premium as per the subsequent notice issued in September 1976.
4. The rejection of the request of the appellants for allotment of plots was principally on two grounds; (1) the applicants were not having licences under Section 416 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and (2) Rule 6(v) of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (for short Nazul Rules ) also required the applicants to be possessed of municipal licence. Both these objections of the DDA did not find favour either with the learned single Judge or the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeals. So these appeals by DDA.
5. Notice dated February 8, 1976 informed all concerned of the decision of the DDA to the industries functioning in non-conforming areas or the areas which were under acquisition for various public purposes to obtain land in the conforming industrial areas which had been developed by the DDA in different localities in Delhi in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan. The applicants were required to make applications on prescribed forms. The notice also informed the applicants to deposit earnest money on the basis of the size of the plot applied by them for allotment. Price of the land was to be deposited in four quarterly instalments. The last date for receipt of the application was March 31, 1976. A second notice was issued by DDA in September 1976 requiring the applicants to pay 30 of the total premium of the land by October 31, 1976. This notice also specified the rates to be charged for different types of developed plots. It is not disputed that the appellants did apply, deposit earnest money as well as the premium as required by the two notices. Their applications however came to be rejected in the year 1988 and the earnest money and premium were also refunded. In the letter rejecting the applications no ground was mentioned as to why the applications were rejected. But it is a common ground that these were rejected as the applicants did not possess the municipal licence and any allotment on that account would contravene the statutory provisions of the Nazul Rules. Section 416 of DMC Act is as under:
"416. Factory, etc., not to be established without permission of the Commissioner.- (1) No person shall, without the previous permission in writing of the Commissioner, establish in any premises, or materially alter, enlarge or extend, any factory, workshop or trade premises in which it is intended to employ steam, electricity, water or other mechanical power.
(2) The Commissioner may refuse to give such permission, if he is of the opinion that establishment, alteration, enlargement or extension of such factory, workshop or trade premises, in the proposed position would be objectionable by reason of the density of the population in the neighbourhood thereof, or would be a nuisance to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood".
Contravention of this provision entails penal consequences and its punishment is provided under Section 461 which is as under :
"461. Punishment for certain offences, whoever.-
(a) contravenes any provision of any of the sections, sub-sections, clauses, provisos or othe
