$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 09.04.2026 + LPA 245/2026 & CM APPL. 22878/2026 ANJALI KHURANA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Banati, Advocate.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None.

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA TEJAS KARIA, J. (Oral

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 27.02.2026 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 7780/2013 (“Writ Petition”), whereby the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant seeking allotment of an industrial plot under the Relocation Scheme was dismissed.

2. It is the case of the Appellant that the Appellant had applied for allotment of an industrial plot pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Respondents in the year 1996 and had deposited earnest money of ₹25,000/- along with the application, out of which ₹6000/- was deposited by the Appellant from her own funds and ₹18,750/- was deposited by one Jain Cooperative Bank Limited (“Bank”) on behalf of the Appellant by advancing loan. The Respondents vide letter dated 26.05.1999 informed the Appellant that the Appellant is eligible for allotment of a flatted factory measuring 50 sq. mts. at Jhilmil Industrial Area. Pursuant to a draw of lots held on 08.06.1999, the Appellant was allotted a flatted factory measuring

50 sq. mts. at Jhilmil Industrial Area on the first floor (“Industrial Unit”).

3. It is further submitted on behalf of the Appellant that after the receipt of the letter dated 26.05.1999, the Appellant requested Respondent No. 2 for shifting of the Industrial Unit to the ground floor on account of installation of heavy machinery, but Respondent No. 2 did not consider the said request of the Appellant. The Appellant contended that Respondent No. 2 did not give possession of the Industrial Unit to the Appellant and did not refund the earnest money.

4. The Appellant further submitted that subsequent to the letter dated 27.03.2008 issued by the Bank asking the Appellant to deposit the loan amount with interest by 31.03.2008, the Appellant deposited a sum of ₹1,12,000/- on 31.03.2008 with the Bank, and vide a letter of the same date further requested the Respondents to inform the balance amount so that entire balance amount could be deposited for taking possession of the Industrial Unit.

5. It is the case of the Appellant that the Respondents in the year 2009 took out an advertisement in Hindi Newspaper and asked the allottees to make fresh request for allotment. Accordingly, the Appellant vide letter dated 15.10.2009 requested the Respondents to allot the plot but the Respondents failed to accede to the request made by the Appellant.

6. Respondent No. 2 has contended that pursuant to the order dated 24.01.2001 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, W.P.(Civil) No. 4677/1985, Respondent No. 2 had issued a Public Notice in Hindustan Times, Times of India, Punjab Kesari on 26.01.2001 (“Public Notice”) notifying all the allottees of plots / flatted factories under the Relocation Scheme to make the payment by 31.03.2001 and that failure to make payment by 31.03.2001 would entail cancellation of allotment, however the Appellant failed to make the complete payment of the Industrial Unit by 31.03.2001.

7. Further, vide letter dated 11.01.2000, the Appellant was asked to pay an amount of ₹5,17,812.52/- towards the cost of the Industrial Unit within a period of three weeks, however, the Appellant failed to make the requisite payment within the prescribed time and therefore, the allotment of the Industrial Unit in favour of the Appellant was cancelled vide letter dated

11.10.2006 (“Cancellation Letter”).

8. The Impugned Judgment has observed that even if the Appellant disputes receipt of the Cancellation Letter, the Public Notice issued pursuant to the directions in M.C. Mehta (supra) applied to all allottees and, admittedly, the A