Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 720
High Court of Delhi
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
Sukhan Lal Singhal (Deceased) Through his L.R.
Versus
D.S.I.I.D.C. Delhi
WP(C) No. 13580 of 2009
Decided on : 02-07-2013
For the Petitioner:H.C. Mittal, Kamshwar Mishra, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Renuka Arora, Kunal Kohli, Vikas Sood, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the concept of waiver, emphasizing the intentional or voluntary relinquishment of a known right. The court concluded that the necessary ingredients for a waiver were present, leading to the restoration of the petitioner's allotment.
Headnote:
Waiver - Industrial Plot Allotment - [Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 21, Section 22] - The court discussed the waiver of rights by the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIIDC) in the context of the petitioner's industrial plot allotment. The court found that the DSIIDC had waived its right to cancel the allotment due to the petitioner's failure to make timely payments, as evidenced by the acceptance of payments and processing charges after the stipulated deadline. The court emphasized the intentional or voluntary relinquishment of a known right and concluded that the necessary ingredients for a waiver were present, ordering the restoration of the petitioner's allotment and granting possession of the plot to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the cancellation of an industrial plot allotment by the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIIDC). The petitioner had made payments beyond the stipulated deadline, and the DSIIDC issued a cancellation letter citing the failure to meet the payment deadline as the reason for cancellation. The petitioner contested this position, claiming that the DSIIDC had waived its right to cancel the allotment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the DSIIDC had waived its right to cancel the allotment due to the petitioner's failure to make timely payments, as evidenced by the acceptance of payments and processing charges after the stipulated deadline. The court emphasized the intentional or voluntary relinquishment of a known right and concluded that the necessary ingredients for a waiver were present.
Issues: The main issue was whether the DSIIDC had waived its right to cancel the allotment due to the petitioner's failure to make timely payments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the DSIIDC had waived its right to cancel the allotment, as the petitioner had made payments and processing charges after the stipulated deadline, and the DSIIDC had accepted these payments, indicating an intentional or voluntary relinquishment of its right to cancel the allotment.
Final Decision: The court ordered the restoration of the petitioner's allotment and granted possession of the plot to the petitioner. The DSIIDC was directed to utilize the money along with interest for its own purposes and to take further steps in the matter, including the execution of a lease deed in accordance with the law.
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
WP(C) 13580/2009 & CM No. 15206/2009
1. This writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 25.01.2008 passed by the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (in short DSIIDC). By virtue of this order DSIIDC cancelled the petitioner’s allotment qua an industrial plot being: Plot No. 91, Pocket-I, Sector-V, situate at Bawana, Delhi, admeasuring 200 sq. mtrs. (hereinafter referred to as the plot).
1.1 Importantly, the impugned communication of DSIIDC gave liberty to the petitioner to either seek refund of the amount deposited with it, or in the alternative keep the amount with it, to be applied towards allotment of industrial plots, of required sizes, only in the eventuality of such plots being made available in the future, subject however to the current wait list being exhausted.
2. The petitioner approached this court by way of the captioned writ petition in the background of the following brief facts, most of which are not in dispute. The facts being as follows:
2.1 The Supreme Court in a Public Interest Petition titled M.C. Mehta vs UOI registered as WP(C) 4677/1985, had directed that, industrial units which were operating in residential or non-conforming areas, were required to be shifted out. Accordingly, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and DSIIDC were initially entrusted with the responsibility of implementing the orders of the Court. Since there was failure on the part of the two entities, the Supreme Court, at some stage, created a special cell under the Ministry of Urban Development in the Government of India (GOI).
2.2 It was in pursuance of orders passed by the Supreme Court, in the aforementioned writ petition, that applications were invited in 1996 by DSIIDC for relocating industrial units. The petitioner was running one such industrial unit, which was located at WZ-572 F, Naraina Village, New Delhi. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application for allotment of an alternative industrial plot. Along-with the application, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 90,000/-. It is not in dispute that, at this stage, the tentative cost for the plot was notified at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per sq. mtr.
2.3 The Supreme Court, evidently, by an order dated 12.09.2000, passed in the aforementioned writ petition, pending before it, directed DSIIDC to allot specific plots to applicants who were sought to be relocated.
2.4 In line with the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court, a draw of lots was held on 12.10.2000. The petitioner was declared successful in this draw held by DSIIDC. Accordingly, vide allotment letter dated 23.10.2000, a specific plot, the details of which are set out hereinabove, was allotted to the petitioner. The tentative cost, though, stood enhanced from Rs. 3000/-per sq. mtr. to Rs 4200/- per sq. mtr. In the allotment letter stages were set out for payment of 50% of the revised estimated cost of the plot; which was set at Rs. 4200 per sq. mtr. The allottees were required to pay 50% of the revised estimated cost by 31.10.2000, along-with interest, after adjustment of earnest money and part of the first instalment, if any, paid.
2.5 Evidently, several allottees were dithering and hence not adhering to the schedule of payments fixed which, propelled the Supreme Court, to issue a direction on 24.01.2001, for one-time extension of time for payment of balance dues against allotments made. The time, was extended till 31.03.2001. For certain industrial areas, such as, Narela, Badli, Jhilmil and Patparganj, 100% payment was required to be made by the said date, while for Bawana, which is where the petitioner was allotted a plot, 50% of the amount due had to be paid by the very same date.
2.6 In accordance with the order passed by the Supreme Court, public notices were taken out by DSIIDC, on 26.01.2001, in the Times of India and Punjab Kesari, while a similar public notice was taken out in Nav Bharat Times, on 27.01.2001.
2.7 Admittedly, the petitioner paid the
