Full Text
LPA 920/2010
BAWANA-II (BHORGARH)
INDUSTRIAL RELOCATION
PLOT OWNER’S ASSOCIATION ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Prasoon Kumar with Mr. Ravi Choudhary, Advocates
Through: Mr. Sandeep Khatri, Advocate for Ms. Reeta Kaul, Advocate for
R-1.
Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocates for R-2/DSIIDC.
Date of Decision: 24th December, 2010
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J CM No. 23222/2010 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. LPA 920/2010 & CM 23221/2010
1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the 2010:DHC:6268-DB Single Judge in W.P.(C) 7768/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition. It is pertinent to mention that by the said writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the demand/cost determined by the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (for short “DSIIDC”).
2. Mr. Prasoon Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the balance 50% of the cost of industrial plot determined by the DSIIDC was highly arbitrary, exorbitant and contrary to the cost determined by the respondents in the minutes of meeting held on 6th August, 2009. He further submitted that the cross-subsidy towards categories such as Economically Weaker Section (EWS) had been illegally added in the cost demanded by DSIIDC. Mr. Prasoon Kumar placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in P.N. Verma & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1985 Delhi 417.
3. Having heard the parties and having perused the paper book, we find that the cost of ` 15,566/- per sq. mtr. determined by DSIIDC is far lower in comparison to the market rate of ` 36,469/- per sq. mtr. as well as to the circle rate of ` 27,400/- per sq. mtr. determined by the Government of NCT of Delhi. We further find that the respondent- DSIIDC had determined the aforesaid cost in pursuance to a circular dated 17th August, 2010 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi. Consequently, the reliance on minutes of meeting dated 06th August, 2009 is misconceived.
4. In our opinion, the judgment in P.N. Verma (supra) is not condition had been stipulated in the letter of allotment that the cost mentioned therein was tentative and subject to change depending on actual cost of development of the industrial plot and directions issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi. Further, in the present case the policy of price fixation or cost factor has not been amended, unlike what was done in P.N. Verma (supra).
5. In fact, on a perusal of the paper book we find that the component of cross-subsidy towards EWS has been added for providing facilities to workmen who are going to be employed by industrialists, like the appellant, under the relocation scheme. Consequently, in our view, the price determined by the DSIIDC is both fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the present appeal and application are dismissed but with no order as to costs. MANMOHAN, J CHIEF JUSTICE DECEMBER 24, 2010 rn