SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Del) 45039

$~ (Appellate)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 31.08.2022 Pronounced on: 01.11.2022 + W.P.(C) 2350/2011 and CM APPL. 5011/2011 AGHUM BAHL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Aneja, Adv.

versus DSIIDC AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Mr. Bankim Garg and Mr. Shakaib Khan, Advs.

or DSIIDC/Respondent 1 Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Mr. Sanyam Suri and Ms. Aoshya Singh, Advs. for Respondent 2 CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR % J U D G M E N T

01.11.2022

1. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of Aghum Enterprises, which was running an industrial unit in the Samaipur Badli industrial area, involved in manufacture of moulded sports and rubber belts since March 1979. The unit remained functional till June 1998, when the petitioner shifted to the Libaspur industrial area.

2. The issue of relocation of industrial units situated in the city of Delhi, to suburban areas in the National Capital Region (NCR) was examined, in detail, by the Supreme Court, resulting in an order passed on 8th July 1996 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India1, which directed that industrial units within Delhi be relocated to other areas in the NCR.

3. Following the said decision, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (DSIIDC) identified industries which were required to be relocated. Guidelines for such relocation were issued by the GNCTD (hereinafter “the Relocation Scheme”), identifying seventeen categories of industries which were required to be so relocated, thus:

Sl.No. Category of Industry Code No.
1. Food Processing & Allied Products 01
2. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals 02
3. Electronics and Telecommunications 03
4. Textile and Textile based wearing apparels 04
5. Electrical goods including appliances 05
6. Auto Parts, Light Engineering and Service industries 06
7. Printing, Paper Products and Allied Packaging 07
8. Plastic, Polymer and Allied ·Packaging 08
9. Rubber based products 09
10. Leather goods 10
11. Coir and Jute Products 11
12. Furniture, Fixtures, and other wood based products, cane and bamboo products 12
13. Petroleum based products & Plastics Processing 13
14. Ceramics and Allied Products 14
15. Machinery and Machine Tools 15

1 1996 (4) SCC 750

16. Chemical Products 16 17. Others, not classified elsewhere including 17 service enterprises

4. Applications were invited from units engaged in the said industries, situated in non-conforming areas, for relocation. The eligibility for relocation was thus stipulated in the said notice:

1. Eligibility:

(i) Non-conforming industrial units working in residential and/or other non-conforming areas which are non-hazardous, non-noxious, and non-polluting shall be considered, for allotment of flatted factory/industrial plot for relocation.

(ii) No new 'industrial' unit shall be considered for allotment, in the Flatted Factory Complexes/Industrial areas proposed to be developed.”

5. Clause 3 of General Conditions for application further stipulated as under:

“3. The applicants are also required to submit an Undertaking alongwith the application in the prescribed form on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.2/- duly attested by a Notary public/1st Class Magistrate to the effect that on allotment of the plot/flat he shall shift from the present place to the industrial estate where the plot/flat is allotted failing which it will be presumed that the said unit IS not interested in relocating its manufacturing activities and as such shall stop operating in residential/non-conforming areas w.e.f. 1-1-1997.”

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the industry in which the petitioner’s unit was engaged was one of the industries enlisted in the afore-noted guidelines issued by the GNCTD. Equally, there is no dispute that Samaipur Badli, in which area the petitioner’s unit was located, was a non-conforming area. The petitione

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top