Rajiv Shakdher, J.

WP(C) No. 4688/2002 & WP(C) No.6198/2010 & CM No.12267/2010

1. These writ petitions have been filed to essentially challenge the communication dated 10.07.2002 issued by the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (in short DSIDC) i.e. Respondent No.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned communication as their allotment to plot No.8 (Pocket-F) Sector-5, situate at Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi, admeasuring 200 sq. mtrs., stands cancelled (hereinafter referred to as the plot in issue). The allotment, as a matter of fact, had been made in favour of the Petitioner No.1 company.

1.1 Specifically in WP(C) 4688/2002 challenge is laid to communication dated 10.07.2002, while in WP(C) 6198/2010 challenge is laid to the show cause notice dated 26.05.2010, which seeks explanation as to why the plot in issue allotted in favour of the petitioner ought not to be cancelled.

2. The background facts, based on which, challenge has been laid are, broadly as follows:

2.1 The Supreme Court issued orders in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4677/1985, titled MC Mehta v. Union of India, to close down industrial units which were being run in residential/non-conforming areas. Consequently, the Government of NCT of Delhi (in short GNCTD), invited applications from persons who were interested in relocating their industrial units, provided they closed down their existing units, which were being run in residential/non-conforming areas.

3. The petitioner, who was one such person running an industrial unit, at X/402/A/3 Jain Gali, Raghubar Pura, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, filed an application, in 1996, for allotment of an industrial plot admeasuring 400 sq. mtrs. This application which bore the number: 55248, was dated 27.12.1996.

3.1 I would be referring to the industrial unit of the petitioners located at the address given hereinabove, as "the old address" in the remaining part of my judgment as a major part of the submissions veer around the address at which the communications were sent by DSIDC, and the effect of the same.

3.2 Apparently, the GNCTD/DSIDC received 51,581 applications, out of which 23,948 applicants were found eligible for allotment of plots, at that particular point in time.

3.3 Continuing with the narrative; insofar as the Petitioners are concerned; with their application, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was deposited towards earnest money by them being 20% of the then estimated cost of the plot, fixed at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per sq. mtr.

3.4 On 06.05.2000, an additional sum of Rs.60,000/- was deposited by the petitioners. In all, by this date, the petitioners had deposited a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards allotment of a plot under the scheme of relocation formulated by the GNCTD i.e. respondent No.1.

3.5 It appears that the Supreme Court by an order dated 12.09.2000 directed the GNCTD/DSIDC, to allocate specific plot numbers to the eligible allottees, within three weeks of the said order.

3.6 It is not in dispute, that a letter of allotment was issued to the petitioners dated 23.10.2000, allocating the plot in issue. The allotment was, however, subject to certain conditions. The essential ingredients of the letter of allotment were that the estimated cost, which was also tentative, was calculated at Rs. 4,200/- per sq. mtr. The petitioners were required to pay, within three (3) months of the issuance of letter of allotment 50% of the revised estimated cost calculated at Rs. 4,200/- per sq. mtrs. after making due adjustment qua the money already deposited.

3.7 The balance 50% of the revised estimated cost was to be paid in a staggered manner, as indicated herein below :

1. Second Instalment 20% of the revised estimated cost after 6 months of the issue of the allotment letter.

2. Third Instalment 20% of the revised estimated cost after next six months.

3. Fourth Instalment The balance actual cost at the time of handing over possession along with difference of the estimated cost of this plot if any.

3.8 The net result was th