Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 2963
DELHI HIGH COURT
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
Yash Pal Sawhney - Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. - Resopndent
WP(C) No.4540/2012
Decided On : 11-09-2012
For the Respondents:Mr Sachin Datta, CGSC for Respondent no. 1. Ms Renuka Arora, Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 to 4.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for authorities to provide reasons for their conclusions and to consider the material on record, ensuring a fair and just decision-making process.
Headnote:
Industrial Plot - Re-location Policy - [Industrial Development Act, 1996, Section 4(1)(a); Sales Tax Act, 1996, Section 7(2)(b); Income Tax Act, 1996, Section 12(3)] - The court discussed the petitioner's application for an industrial plot under a re-location policy, emphasizing the establishment of the industrial unit prior to the cut-off date, and the non-consideration of relevant material by the authorities. The court highlighted the flawed rationale used by the authorities and the lack of reasons provided in the impugned order, leading to a breach of natural justice. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondent to hear the appeal again based on the material on record.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for an industrial plot under a re-location policy, claiming the establishment of the industrial unit prior to the cut-off date. The authorities rejected the application, citing failure to prove establishment before the cut-off date. The petitioner challenged the orders, alleging a breach of natural justice and non-consideration of relevant material.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders lacked reasons and failed to consider the material on record, leading to a breach of natural justice. The court set aside the orders and directed the respondent to hear the appeal again based on the material on record.
Issues: Breach of natural justice, non-consideration of relevant material, flawed rationale by authorities
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned orders lacked reasons and failed to consider the material on record, leading to a breach of natural justice. The flawed rationale used by the authorities was highlighted, and the court emphasized the importance of providing reasons for the conclusion reached by the authorities.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondent to hear the appeal again based on the material on record. The respondent was instructed to pass a speaking order, and the petitioner was given the liberty to seek further legal remedies if the order passed by the respondent was adverse.
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.08.2011, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.08.2011, emanating from the office of respondent no. 3, and the communication dated 17.04.2012, whereby the petitioner's application dated 02.11.2011 for granting personal hearing was rejected. In sum and substance, the impugned order and communication is passed by respondent no. 2, i.e., the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
2. At the very outset it may be noticed that the petitioner had applied for an industrial plot, under a re-location policy of the respondents; a request, which was, rejected solely, on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish that the industrial unit, which was, closed down and against which re-location was sought, was operational prior to the cut-off date, i.e., 19.04.1996.
3. The aforesaid challenge of the writ petitioner to the impugned order is thus made in the background of the following broad facts as set out in the writ petition, to demonstrate that these were several indices to which reference was made to prove that the petitioner had established his industrial unit prior to 19.04.1996. Essentially the grievance is that none of these factors were considered by respondent no.2.
3.1 The petitioner avers that in January, 1992, he had set up a copper wire/copper aluminum wire drawing industrial unit in the name and style of M/s Alankar Tar Manufacturing. The said unit was set up in premises bearing khasra no. 29/10, Gali 17, Libaspur, Delhi – 110042 (in short the said premises). The said premises were taken on lease by the petitioner from one Sh. Narender Kumar, who had obtained a sanction power load of 37.4 kw.
3.2 Vide application no. 22749 dated 13.03.1992, the petitioner made an application to respondent no. 3 for registering his concern as a SSI unit. The respondent no. 3 raised objections vis-a-vis petitioner's application for registration as an SSI unit vide communication dated 8.4.1992. The petitioner, also opened a current account bearing 1780, on 21.04.1992 under the name and style of Alankar Tar Manufacturing with Punjab National Bank (PNB) with its branch at Vijay Nagar. A loan in the sum of Rs 85000/- was taken from the said bank for running a small scale industry vide loan account no. T/LA/C. No. 165/92. The purpose of the loan was to purchase machinery for installation in its aforementioned industrial unit.
3.3 It appears on 30.10.1993, PNB requested the petitioner to furnish a fresh insurance policy in respect of the machinery purchased as the earlier insurance policy had expired.
3.4 On 27.05.1994, the petitioner also applied to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) vide application no. 13000 for grant of license. Requisite license fee was also deposited.
3.5 Since the petitioner had committed a default in payment of his loan instalment, in January, 1995, the PNB issued a communication in that regard at the aforementioned premises of the petitioner. On 07.04.1995, the petitioner changed the name of his proprietorship concern from Alankar Tar Manufacturing to M/s Ambika Metal India. Electricity dues were also paid by the petitioner between 6.4.1995 to 4.5.1995, on 27.5.1995, to the extent of Rs 6,442/-. On 13.6.1995, United India Insurance issued an insurance policy in respect of the machinery installed at the aforementioned premises of the petitioner for the period 13.12.1995 to 12.6.1996. On 04.12.1995, a registration certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner's industrial unit, by Director of Industries.
3.6 The petitioner claims that the electricity bills amounting to Rs 21,673/- was paid for the period 6.12.1995 to 5.1.1996; on 29.1.1996.
3.7 The petitioner avers that, in April, 1996 an application was made for grant of registration by the Sales Tax Department. It is the case of the petitioner that registration was obtained w.e.f 27.05.1996, both for local and central sales tax. Income tax returns for assessmen
