Ramesh Chand Jain v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. AUGUST 10, 2018 bs

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 10th August, 2018. + RAMESH CHAND JAIN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajeev Chhetri, Ms. Meenakshi Rawat and Mr. Rajesh Chhetri, Advs. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CMs No.32159/2018 & 32160/2018 (both for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed of. RSA 114/2018 & CMs No.32158/2018 (for stay), 32161/2018 & 32162/2018 (both for condonation of delays of 47 days in filing and 40 days in re-filing the appeal) 3. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 5th January, 2018 in RCA No.1164/2016 of the Court of Senior Civil Judge (Central)] of dismissal of First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree [dated 20th September, 2011 in Suit No.192/2011 (Case ID No.02401C323112003) of the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi] of dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants to allot an industrial plot under the re-location scheme of the respondent No.1. 4. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has been heard. 5. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit, from which this appeal arises, pleading (i) that the appellant/plaintiff was running a factory for manufacturing PVC Foot Wear under the name and style of 'Saraswati Plastic' at Plot No.232, Main Road, Ram Pura, Delhi; (ii) that due to sealing of factories in residential and non-conforming area of NCT of Delhi, the said factory was closed/shifted on 15th February, 2000; (iii) that the appellant/plaintiff, as per the scheme of the government to allot industrial plots in lieu of the displaced factories, moved an application on 23rd December, 1996 for allotment of industrial plot and also filed various documents viz. (a) rent receipt; (b) affidavit; (c) photocopy of PVC Association Registration for membership; (d) profit and loss account along with balance sheet; and, (e) photocopy of acknowledgement of the office of Income Tax along with Certificate of Income Tax; (iv) that the said application of the appellant/plaintiff was considered by the Commissioner of Industries and the allotment was denied and the application rejected; (v) that the appellant/plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order, which too was dismissed reasoning that "no documentary evidence of the establishment of industry before 19th April, 1996 had been filed"; (vi) that as per the statement made by the Minister for Industries & Power, Delhi, Income Tax Return or proof of Delhi Vidyut Board Misuse Commission was enough for allotment of an industrial plot; (vii) that there was no condition of submission of documents showing establishment of industry; and, (viii) that yet another appeal was filed by the appellant/plaintiff but the same was also dismissed. Hence, the suit impugning the rejection of the application of the appellant/plaintiff for allotment of a factory site and for a direction for allotment of industrial plot. 6. The respondents/defendants contested the suit, inter alia pleading (a) that the scheme for relocation of industries functioning in residential/non- conforming areas, to conforming use zones, was being implemented in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India from time to time; (b) that the eligibility under the said scheme was that the applicant unit should be located in residential/non-conforming area and should be in existence prior to 19th April, 1996 i.e. the date of the order of the Supreme Court; (c) that to prove the existence of the unit before the cut-off date, the appellant/plaintiff was requested to produce the prescribed government documents as detailed in the scheme; (d) that all the applicants who were able to produce the said documents were declared eligible under the scheme; (e)