Dua Polymers Pvt Ltd v. Dsidc & Anr

MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 19, 2010 AK

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 19th August, 2010 + LPA 589/2010 SANJAY PLASTIC INDUSTRIES ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Sunil Satyarthi and Mr. Raman Gandhi, Advs. versus DSIDC & ANR ..... Respondents Through : Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Ms. Renuka Arora, Advs. for DSIDC Mr. Tariq Sami, proxy Adv. for Mr. A. Javed for R-2 AND + LPA 590/2010 DUA POLYMERS PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Sunil Satyarthi and Mr. Raman Gandhi, Advs. versus DSIDC & ANR ..... Respondents Through : Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Ms. Renuka Arora, Advs. for DSIDC Mr. Tariq Sami, proxy Adv. for Mr. A. Javed for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ Regard being had to the commonality of the controversy involved in both the appeals, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The resume' of facts which are necessary to be stated are that the appellants-writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants") invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of mandamus to the respondent-Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (for short "DSIDC") as well as the Commissioner of Industries to give possession of industrial plots measuring 100 sq. metres allotted in favour of the appellants by the first respondent. A further prayer was also made for issuance of a writ of certiorari for cancellation of the order dated 10th July, 2002. 3. The factual exposition as discernible is that both the appellants had applied for the plot of the industrial land measuring 400 sq. metres in December 1996 under the re-allocation scheme and had deposited the earnest money. They were extended the benefit of allotment and in pursuance of the same, a letter of demand was sent by the DSIDC requiring them to deposit 30% of the revised estimated cost of the plot @ Rs.4,200/- per sq. metre after adjustment of the earnest money that had already been deposited. The first installment was required to be paid by 31st October, 2000. The appellant, M/s Dua Polymers (Pvt.) Limited, did not comply with the same on the ground that the earnest money had already been deposited with DSIDC. Similar letter was issued by the appellant, namely, M/s Sanjay Plastic Industries. After writing such letter, as is evident from the order impugned, the appellants waited till 18th November, 2008 to approach this Court for redressal of their grievance. The learned Single Judge did not entertain the writ petition basically on the ground that the order of cancellation was passed against the appellants on 10th July, 2002 and they had approached the writ Court on 18th November, 2008 and, hence, the doctrine of delay and laches is squarely attracted to the case at hand. Additionally, the learned Single Judge referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India rendered on 12th September, 2000 directing that if payment is not made by any of the allottees on a demand being raised, their allotment shall stand cancelled and they shall have to close down the unit immediately. 4. Questioning the soundness of the aforesaid order, Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellants, urged that the learned Single Judge has fallen into error by throwing the writ petition overboard on the ground of delay and laches without adverting to the merits of the case despite the fact that a stand was taken in the writ petitions that a series of representations and complaints were made to the DSIDC and, therefore, the cause of action remained alive. It is contended by him that when such a substantial right is affected, it was not apposite on the part of the learned Single Judge not to adjudicate the lis on merits but to accept the stand put forth by the DSIDC