S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 9. 12. 2002 in CWP No. 5696/02. The impugned judgment had allowed the respondents writ petition and directed recording of the change in the Constitution in respect of allotment of an Industrial plot subject to payment of unearned increase, as applicable. Further direction to hand over possession upon payment of such unearned increase was also issued.

( 2 ) THE respondent was incorporated as a Pvt. Ltd. Company on 1. 10. 1993. Originally it was a partnership concern comprising two persons, namely Shri Vijay Bajaj and Ms. Madhu Rani.

( 3 ) THE respondent had applied for allotment of an industrial plot for the purpose of re-location of its activities and shifting from non-conforming areas, pursuant to certain directions issued by the Supreme Court.

( 4 ) THE appellant allotted a plot to the respondent on 15. 12. 2000; the latter deposited Rs. 10,50,000/- by its letter dated 5. 1. 2001. Subsequently, by its letter dated 19. 1. 2001, the respondent notified the appellant about change in its composition inasmuch as certain new Directors had been inducted. It was also intimated that this change was pursuant to resignation of certain Directors and induction of new Directors.

( 5 ) ON 14. 9. 2001 the Government of NCT of Delhi published a Policy which had the effect of imposing a prohibition, as well as restricting the change of names in a lease deed, through induction of new partners (in a firm) or Directors in companies, etc.

( 6 ) THE appellant, sought shelter under that policy and communicated its decision of not permitting the transfer, to the respondent. This resulted in the allotment not accruing to the respondent. The appellants action was accordingly questioned in writ proceedings.

( 7 ) THE learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment, after analysing the relevant clauses in the policy published on 14. 9. 2001 found that changes in the Constitution of a company by way of induction of new Directors, were permissible (without any payment or charges) if such changes were limited to family members. He held that such a limitation could not be construed as an absolute bar in such cases. In other cases where the new directors were outsiders, it was held that transfer was permitted upon payment of unearned increase/charges. The learned Single Judge also found no rational basis for permitting substitution/deletion in the case of partnership concern upon payment of unearned increase and prohibiting the change in the Constitution of Directors even if the company was willing to pay unearned increase.

( 8 ) MS. Anusuya Salwan appearing for the appellant submits that the rational which weighed with the authorities for formulating the guidelines for transfers were based upon public policy considerations. It is submitted that those restrictions were necessitated on account of many allottees resorting to disguised sale of allotments through change in the composition of the firm/ Constitution of the Management of allottee companies.

( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel also submits that the relevant stipulation namely, Clause 2 imposes an absolute embargo upon the right of a firm or a company to change the composition of its Management. She submits that there is no question of payment of unearned increase in such cases.

( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon conditions embodied in the Guidelines in Management of Industrial Land, formulated by the erstwhile Delhi Administration some time in 1968, which places restriction or embargo upon change in the composition/management of allottee firms or allottee private companies.

( 11 ) FOR a fuller consideration of the issues, it would be necessary to extract the material portions of the policy published on 14. 9. 2001:

"1. Substitution/addition/deletion of names of family members in the lease deed shall be allowed without any charge. 2. Deletion of one or more part

Click Here to Read the rest of this document