Aghum Bahl v. DSIIDC and Anr

1. Units situated in commercial areas.

2. Units located in Anand Parbat, Samaipur Badli and Sahadara as these areas are covered by the redevelopment scheme under the Delhi Master Plan-200l.

3. Service sector industries such as Atta Chakki, Dry Cleaners, Scooter repairs centre etc.

4. Eligible Units who have applied for allotment of land measuring 400 sq.mtrs. and above will be offered only 250 sq.mtrs. plots. The list of eligible applicants is being reconciled and computerised. The list will be displayed in the offices of Commissioner of Industries, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, CPO Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-6 and DSIDC, N-36, Bombay Life Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi by the end of July, 1999. All queries in this regard may be addressed to Sh. H. Malik, Jt. Director of Industries, Tel.No.2966876 or Sh. J.S. Chaudhary, Dy. Director of Industries,Tel.No.2961817 or Sh. Ravi Dutt Vermas, Inspector, one window service Tel. No.2961587. (J.B. SINGH) SECRETARY & COMMISSIONER (INDUSTRIES) GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI” (Emphasis Supplied)

10. This was followed by the following communication dated 20th July 1999 from the Department of Industries to the MD, DSIIDC: “Department of Industries Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi C.P.O. Building, Kashmera Gate, Delhi-6 Dated 20th July, 1999 In continuation to my D.O. Letter NO. AD 1 (R)/31/CI/98/2185 dated 8.7.99 regarding implementation of the decision in the Cabinet Meeting held on 07.06.1999 and 3rd meeting of the High Powered Project Implementation Committee in respect of 'Relocation Scheme'. The following important decisions are also brought to your kind notice for necessary action please.

(i) The units located in commercial areas should be allowed to continue in the existing locations. These cases should not be considered for allotment of plots/flats under the 'Relocation Scheme'.

(ii) Service industries such as Atta Chakkis, Dry Cleaner's etc.

(iii) Units located in Anand parbat, Samaipur Badli and

Shahdara areas being considered for the time being as these areas are covered under redevelopment scheme under the Delhi Master Plan-2001.

(iv) The units who have applied for industrial plots measuring more than 400 sq.mtrs. will be offered a maximum of only 250 sq.mtrs.

(v) The size of the plots recommended should not exceed double the area presently occupied by the unit. However, no such restriction is imposed in case of flats.

(vi) Where Municipal Corporation License is being relied as proof of establishment, the MCL should be valid at least upto 31.03.l995.

(vii) Units which are functioning from more than one premises and submitted separate applications in respect of each premises, the requirement of plot area of all the locations should be clubbed together and if it exceeds 400 sq.mtrs. then the provisions proposed for larger units should be applied.

(viii) Change in Constitution of the applicant unit involving blood relation should be accepted at this stage so as to avoid change of hands.

(ix) Where the MCL is in the name of owner of the unit, affidavit may be obtained that the said MCL has not been used by any other unit except the applicant unit for establishing the date of establishment of unit. The Industries Department, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, had initially sent files of 8,831 applicants to D.S.I.D.C. without scrutiny. These applicants were considered eligible on the basis of Cabinet decision dated 23.08.l997 wherein it was decided that no scrutiny needs to be done in respect of applicants who had applied for grant of permission to High Power Committee for operating in residential areas and were also found in existence during the survey conducted by D.PC.C. However, these cases and other cases recommended to DSIDC from time to time in the past need to be checked for conformity with the above decisions. You are, therefore, requested to kindly review the eligibility of 8,831 applicants taking into consideration the decisions now taken by Cabinet/High Powered Project Implementation Committee. Copies of the Cabinet decision & minutes of the High Powered Project Implementation Committee are enclosed herewith for ready reference. It may also be mentioned that Supreme Court vide its orders issued from time to time directed 1328 Hazardous/Naxious and heavy & large industries falling under H(a) & H(b) categories of MPD-2001 to close down their activities in Delhi and shift to other states of N.C.R. There is a possibility that some of these industries might have applied for allotment of plots under the 'Relocation Scheme List of 1328 industrial units is enclosed herewith. While issuing Provisional Eligibility letters to the units, care may be taken to exclude the above units. If any of the above 1328 units is found to have applied under 'Relocation Scheme' its application may be rejected straight way. You are also requested to take immediate steps for acquisition of the additional 794 acres of area identified in Structural Plan for development of industrial areas. With Yours Sd/- (J.P. SINGH)”

11. The above decision was advertised by the Commissioner (Industries) by way of the following Public Notice, which was brought out in national daily on 4th September 1999: “OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES GOVT.

OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI RELOCATION OF INDUSTRIES UNDER THE RELOCATION SCHEME PUBLIC NOTICE Industrial units who have applied for allotment of industrial plots/flats under the 'Relocation Scheme' were informed vide advertisement appearing in daily newspaper on 15.7.1999 that the list of applications found eligible for allotment of industrial plots/flats would be available in the office of the Commissioner of Industries, Government of NCT of Delhi, G.P.O. Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi by the end of July, 1999. It was also informed that following categories of industrial units would not be considered for allotment under the Relocation Scheme.

1. Units situated in Commercial Areas.

2. Units located in Anand Parbat, Samaipur Badli and Shahdara Areas as these areas are covered by Redevelopment Scheme under the Delhi Master Plan-2001.

3. Service Sector Industries such as Atta Chakkies, Drycleaners, Scooter Repair Centres etc.

4. Eligible units who have applied for allotment of land measuring 400 sq. mtrs. and above will be offered only 250 sq. mtrs. plots. Status in respect of each application has been reflected in the Office Computers available at Telephone Nos. 2966875, 2964847 and 2961587. Cases of the applicants who have been found ineligible for allotment of plot/flat are being reexamined on the basis of representations received. Last date for submission of such representations including copies of all relevant documents has been fixed as 30.09.1999. No request for reconsideration of the cases will be entertained after 30.09.1999. It has come to the notice of this Office that forged documents are being submitted by some of the applicants to secure eligibility under the 'Relocation Scheme'. Applicants are being cautioned not to indulge in such practices. Appropriate action will be taken by the Department against the applicants submitting forged documents. J.P. Singh DIR 953/99 Secretary & Commissioner (Industries)”

12. Samaipur Badli, the area in which the petitioner’s erstwhile unit was located was, therefore, declared an ineligible area under the Relocation Scheme by the afore-noted Public Notice. It may be noted, here, that units which were slated for redevelopment were commonly known as “in situ” industrial units, inasmuch as they were being redeveloped in the very area in which they were located.

13. Following the above decision, on 9th September 1999, the Commissioner of Industries, GNCTD addressed the following letter to the Chief Manager (Relocation), DSIIDC: “OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES GOVT.

OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI C.P.O. BUILDING: KASHMERE GATE: DELHI No. ADI/(R)/97/CI/2191 Dated 9/9/99 To, Shri Bhagwan Dass Chief Manager (Relocation) Delhi State Indl. Devp. Corp., N -Block, Bombay Life Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-1. Sub.: Relocation of industries from residential and non-conforming areas to conforming use zones. Sir, Please refer to your letter No. DSIDC/RL/Policy/1/Part-I/98/ 1410 dated 12.8.99 vide which certain clarifications have been sought in respect of certain Issues. The necessary clarifications are given below:

I. A review of all the cases in which provisional eligibility letters have been issued is required to the undertaken by the DSIDC immediately so as to identify the following· categories which are not to be considered for allotment under the Relocation Scheme:-

II. Units situated in commercial areas.

III. Units located in Anand parbat, Samaipur Baadli and

IV. Service Sector Industries such as Atta Chakkies, Dry-

V. Eligible units who have applied for allotment of land measuring 400 sq.mtrs. and above will be offered only 290 sq. mtrs. plots. The department has already requested DDA to provide demarcations for the areas of Anand Parbat, Shahdara and Samai Pur Badli falling under redevelopment scheme. Requisite details shall be made available immediately after these are received from D.D.A. The Department of Industries has scrutinized cases where the units have applied for allotment of industrial plots measuring more than 400 sq. mtrs. Necessary recommendations in these cases shall be sent to you shortly after necessary approval is received from Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi. However, cases already approved and sent to the D.S.I.D.C. in the first lot of 8,831 cases needs to be reviewed by the D.S.I.D.C. Please find enclosed a copy of the D.O. letter sent by Commissioner of Industries to Managing Director- D.S.I.D.C. for your ready reference. Yours faithfully, (H.L. MALIK) Encl.: As above. JT.

DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES(R)”

14. On 22nd August 2000, the petitioner’s application for allotment of an alternative plot under the Relocation Scheme was rejected by the respondents. The petitioner appealed, against the said decision, to the Appellate Committee constituted under the Relocation Scheme. The Appellate Committee, noting that the units which had shifted their premises after the cut-off date were allowed for allotment of alternative units, recommended the petitioner’s case.

15. Following this, on 22nd October 2001, the DSIIDC issued a letter to the petitioner, informing that, based on preliminary scrutiny, the petitioner’s unit had been found to be provisionally eligible for allotment of alternative industrial plot admeasuring 200 sq. mtrs. On 7th May 2004, the DSIIDC issued an allotment letter to the petitioner, informing the petitioner that it had been allotted an alternative industrial Plot No. 74, admeasuring 200 sq. mts. in Sector 4, Pocket G, Bawana, at a tentative cost of ₹ 4,200/- per sq. mtr. Complete payment of ₹ 6,85,000/-, as required by the said allotment letter dated 7th May 2004, was made by the petitioner on 2nd August 2004, within the time stipulated therein.

16. On 31st May 2005, Libaspur was declared an area slated for in situ redevelopment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was at pains to point out to the Court that the said decision would not affect the case of the petitioner, as (i) the eligibility of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative industrial plot had to be reckoned as in 1996, when Samaipur Badli was yet a non-conforming area and (ii) the petitioner did not own any industrial plot in Libaspur.

17. Nonetheless, in December 2005, the Officer on Special Duty (RL) wrote to the Joint Commissioner of Industries, GNCTD, with reference to the application of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative industrial plot under the Relocation Scheme. Clarification regarding release, to the petitioner, of the alternative industrial plot located at Bawana was sought, on the sole ground that Samaipur Badli had been declared an area intended for in situ redevelopment under the MPD 2001. The petitioner has placed, on record, file notings of the Assistant Executive Engineer (CD)-V and of the Executive Engineer (CD)-V in the office of the DSIIDC, opining that the petitioner’s unit was entitled to be allotted an alternative industrial plot. Despite these notings, the matter was further referred, by the respondents, to the Industrial Land Management Advisory Committee (ILMAC).

18. The ILMAC, vide decision dated 1st March 2011, opined that the petitioner was not eligible for allotment of an alternative plot under the Relocation Scheme as (i) Libaspur in which the petitioner was then situated had also been declared an in situ area under the redevelopment plan and (ii) changes subsequent to 19th April 1996, which was the cut-off date, could not render an applicant eligible.

19. The ILMAC, therefore, placed the matter before the competent authority for cancellation of the allotment, to the petitioner, of the Bawana plot.

20. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking (i) an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the decision dated 1st March 2011 of the ILMAC and (ii) a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to handover, to the petitioner, Plot No. 74, Sector 4, Pocket G, Bawana Industrial Complex, under the Relocation Scheme. Rival Contentions

21. I have heard Mr Rajiv Aneja, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms Anusuya Salwan, learned Counsel for the respondent, at length.

22. Mr Aneja emphasizes the fact that, during the period the petitioner’s unit continued at Samaipur Badli, it had never been declared an in situ industrial area and that by the time it was so declared, the petitioner had shifted to Libaspur which, too, at the time was a non-conforming industrial area and was declared in situ subsequently in 2005. In any event, the petitioner’s location at Libaspur was, according to the petitioner, irrelevant, as the petitioner was not owning any industrial plot in Libaspur, but was occupying the plot on tenancy basis. The right of the petitioner to allotment of an alternative industrial plot asserts Mr Aneja, relates back to 1996, and that right could not be defeated or eviscerated by subsequent developments, none of which applied to the petitioner. Mr Aneja emphasizes the fact that, while declaring the petitioner to be eligible for allotment of an alternative industrial plot on 22nd October 2001, and while allotting an alternative industrial plot to the petitioner on 7th May 2004, these considerations had been borne in mind.

23. Mr. Aneja has further submitted that the petitioner was effectively being put to prejudice for having not continued in the Samaipur Badli area. He submits that, had the petitioner continued in Samaipur Badli, he would have been entitled to do so, as the area was slated for in situ redevelopment. Mr. Aneja submits that, having applied for relocation in 1996 and having, in accordance with the Relocation Scheme, discontinued industrial operation at Samaipur Badli w.e.f. 1st January 1997, the petitioner could not be denied the benefit of relocation by retrospectively applying the decision to declare Samaipur Badli as an in situ area for redevelopment, which was taken only in 1999, by which time the petitioner had already shifted to Libaspur. The declaration of Libaspur as in situ, he further submits, could have no effect on the case of his client as, prior thereto, the petitioner had already been handed over the possession letter, granting him possession of the Bawana plot. Having allowed the petitioner’s appeal against the decision to cancel the allotment of an alternative industrial plot made to him and on the basis of the said decision of the Appellate Committee, the petitioner having disgorged the entire amount payable for the allotment of an alternative industrial plot, Mr. Aneja submits that the respondents could not be permitted to resile on its obligation to allot, to the petitioner, the plot earmarked for it. Mr. Aneja placed reliance in support of his submission, on the judgment of this Court in GNCTD v. Bhushan Kumar[2], as well as the order dated 19th August 2015 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 015620-015621/2008[3], in the appeal preferred by the DSIIDC thereagainst. Before the Supreme Court, in the said appellate proceedings, Mr. Aneja points out that the DSIIDC had agreed to abide by the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Kavita Ahuja v. DSIIDC[4]. He also relies on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court[5] and of the High Court of Calcutta in Chhanda Koley v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd[6].

24. Arguing, per contra, Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned Counsel for the DSIIDC submitted, initially, that the issues stand covered against the petitioner by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in MANU/DE/0479/2008 DSIIDC v. Yashpal Madan and Ors. MANU/SC/1081/2010

25. Ms. Salwan submits that, in view of the change in policy as manifested by the Public Notice dated 14th July 1999 (issued by the Commissioner (Industries), Govt. of NCT of Delhi), communication dated 20th July 1999 (from the Department of Industries to DSIIDC) and the public notice dated 4th September 1999 brought out in the National dailies by the Commissioner (Industries), the petitioner lost any right to allotment of an alternative plot, as the right was claimed on the basis of the situs of the petitioner’s industrial unit at Samaipur Badli, which had been removed from the list of areas eligible for allotment of an alternative plot. Ms. Salwan submits that the right to allotment of an alternative plot would have to be assessed on the date when the allotment became ripe for grant, and not on the date when the application for allotment of an alternative plot had been made. As, on the date when the alternative plot at Bawana had become available for allotment to the petitioner, Samaipur Badli had already been declared an area ineligible for allotment of alternative plots, no alternative plot, she submits, could be allotted to the petitioner. Ms. Salwan, in that regard, differs from the impugned decision dated 1st March 2011 of the ILMAC, to the extent the ILMAC relied on status of the Libaspur industrial area as one of the grounds to justify reversal of the decision to allot an industrial plot to the petitioner. Libaspur, or its status, according to Ms. Salwan, was really irrelevant in the entire scheme of things. The petitioner’s case, she submits, would have to be examined on the basis of the fact that he had, at one time, been located in Samaipur Badli. As Samaipur Badli was no longer an area eligible under the relocation scheme, Ms. Salwan submits that the (2006) 88 DRJ 604(DB): (2006) revisiting, by the respondent, of the decision to allot an alternative plot to the petitioner was justified in law and on facts.

26. Ms. Salwan has placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Naresh Gupta[7]. Analysis DSIIDC v. Naresh Gupta[7]

27. The respondents before the Division Bench in Naresh Gupta[7] (hereinafter “Naresh Gupta etc.”), who were the original petitioners, claimed to be aggrieved – as is the petitioner in the present proceedings – by the fact that, after alternative plots had been allotted to them under the relocation scheme, the allotment was cancelled and no possession of the plots was given to them. Naresh Gupta etc. had also applied for relocation pursuant to the notice issued in 1996 as a sequel to the orders passed by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta[1]. Later, following the policy decision taken in 1999 by the Department of Industries, allotment of the alternative plots to Naresh Gupta etc. was cancelled. The cancellation was assailed by Naresh Gupta etc. as being violative of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta[1].

28. The writ petition having been allowed by a learned Single Judge, DSIIDC appealed to the Division Bench. The Division Bench, after examining the orders passed by the Supreme Court, held that the policy decision taken in 1999, whereby the demographics of the relocation policy were changed, was not violative, in any way, of the orders passed in M.C. Mehta[1]. In para 9 of the report, the Division Bench held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta[1], categorically laid down “that it was not a vested right of the persons who have put industry in non-conforming areas to continue there, nor it is the direction to give an alternate plot and then close industry in the non-conforming areas”. The Division Bench understood the judgment of the Supreme Court as ordering “closing down of the industry irrespective of the fact that whether industry is allotted an alternative plot or not”. In other words, held the Division Bench, “allotment of alternate plot is not a pre-condition for closing down the industry”.

29. Taking stock of the difficulties faced in allotment of alternate plots, given the large number of applications received by the governmental authorities, the Division Bench did not find any arbitrariness in the 1999 revision of the relocation scheme. Para 15 of the report in Naresh Gupta[7], in this context, observes thus:

30. The alternative plot had been allotted to Naresh Gupta etc. even though their units were located in an area slated for re-development. The allocation was, therefore, it was noted, in violation of the 1999 revised relocation scheme. In that view of the matter, the Division Bench held that there was no arbitrariness in the decision to cancel the allotment. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was, therefore, reversed, the writ petition was dismissed and the appeal was allowed by the Division Bench.

31. This case, too, involved a dispute identical to that which arises before me. Bhushan Kumar (“Bhushan”, hereinafter), consequent on the notice issued by GNCTD in 1996, applied for allotment of an alternative plot on 26th December 1996 and deposited the requisite earnest money.

DSIIDC informed him, on 3rd April 1998, that he had been found provisionally eligible for allotment of an industrial plot measuring 250 sq. mtrs under the relocation scheme. The letter called upon Bhushan to pay 30% of the cost of the plot. He did so, within the time provided. Consequent thereupon, vide letter dated 10th October 2000, DSIIDC declared Bhushan the allottee of industrial plot no. 281, Sector-1, Pocket-N, Bawana Industrial Area, and required him to deposit 50% of the total revised estimated cost of the plot. Bhushan made the said deposit. Nonetheless, DSIIDC did not hand over possession, to Bhushan, of the said plot. Bhushan, thereupon, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

32. In its defence, DSIIDC contended that, though Bhushan’s industrial unit was only 100 sq. yards in area, he had applied for an alternative plot of 400 sq. mtrs, to which he was not entitled under the relocation scheme. The entitlement of Bhushan was, according to DSIIDC, only to a plot of 150 sq. mtrs, pursuant to the revised Cabinet decision/policy of the GNCTD. DSIIDC, therefore, contended that Bhushan could not be allotted an alternative plot of 400 sq. mtrs area.

33. Bhushan, per contra, contended that, with the acceptance, by him, of the offer for allotment of alternative plot extended by the allotment letter dated 10th October 2000 and the payment, by him, of the amounts demanded therein, a concluded contract had come into existence, between DSIIDC and himself. That contract, it was sought to be submitted, could not be novated except by consensus ad idem.

34. Bhushan’s arguments found favour with the Division Bench of this Court. Initially, in para 19 of the report, of its judgment, the Division Bench observed that though no right to allotment accrued in favour of Bhushan consequent to the initial provisional allotment letter dated 3rd April 1998, the subsequent final allotment letter dated 10th October 2000 brought, to an end, the provisional status of the allotment, which stood finalized thereby. At the time of issuance of the final allotment letter, the DSIIDC, it was noted, was well aware of the revised Cabinet policy. The DSIIDC could not, therefore, seek to rely on the said policy to justify cancellation of the allotment letter. Holding that, in the circumstances, Bhushan was entitled to be allotted an alternative plot of 250 sq. mtrs, the Division Bench held cancellation of the allotment to be unjustified. On the aspect of novation, the Division Bench, in para 31 of the report, held thus:

35. Accordingly, the Division Bench held Bhushan to be entitled to an alternative plot admeasuring 250 sq. mtrs.

36. The decision in Bhushan was carried, in appeal by DSIIDC to the Supreme Court and was disposed of, with a batch of similar SLPs, vide order dated 19th August 2015. Kavita Ahuja v. DSIIDC[4]

37. Before, however, alluding to the said order, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kavita Ahuja v. DSIIDC[4], rendered in the interregnum.

38. Among the Civil Appeals/SLPs which came to be decided by the Supreme Court in Kavita Ahuja[4] were included appeals preferred by the DSIIDC against judgments by the Division Bench of this Court, similar to the decision of this Court in Bhushan Kumar[2]. Paras 20 to 27 of the report in Kavita Ahuja[4] deserve to be reproduced in extenso, thus:

39. The appeal of DSIIDC against the decision in Bhushan Kumar and similar cases subsequently came up the appeals before the Supreme Court on 19th August 2015, as already noted hereinabove, with the lead case being DSIIDC v. Yashpal Madan[8]. The appeals were disposed of vide the following brief order: SLP(C) 015620-015621- 2008 “Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the above Special Leave Petitions would submit that the issues raised and canvassed in all these Special Leave Petitions are identical with the issues raised and decided by this Court in the case of Kavita Ahuja & Ors. vs. Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos.2192-2201 of 2010 and in the case of Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Gulshan Arora & Anr., Civil Appeal No.2202 of 2010, decided on 16.02.2010 and requests to dispose of these Special Leave Petitions on the same terms, conditions, observations and directions as in the case of Kavita Ahuja (Supra) and Gulshan Arora (Supra). In view of the statement so made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we dispose of these Special Leave Petitions on the same terms, conditions, observations and directions as in the case of Kavita Ahuja (Supra) and Gulshan Arora (Supra). Ordered accordingly.”

40. In view of the above decisions, the issue in controversy in the present petition is no longer res integra. It stands covered, on facts as well as in law, by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Bhushan Kumar[2], which stands effectively affirmed by the Supreme Court in Kavita Ahuja[4] and Yashpal Madan[8].

41. I may note here, that Ms. Salwan did not advance any arguments to distinguish the decisions in Bhushan Kumar[2], Yashpal Madan[8] and Kavita Ahuja[4].

42. In the present case, too, a final allotment letter was issued to the petitioner on 7th May 2004. The DSIIDC cannot, therefore, seek to place reliance on the revision in the relocation scheme in 1999, which was prior to the said letter. The entire amount which was required to be paid by the said letter, stands paid by the petitioner. A binding contract, thereby, came into existence between DSIIDC and the petitioner. That contract could not have been novated unilaterally by the DSIIDC by subsequently cancelling the allotment letters or refusing to grant possession of the allotted plot.

43. The fact that the petitioner was, by the time of issuance of the said letter, situated at Libaspur, and the status of the Libaspur Industrial Area, therefore, become completely inconsequential, in view of the raison d’etre of the decision in Bhushan Kumar[2], which stands affirmed by the Supreme Court.

44. Inasmuch as Naresh Gupta[7] was cited in Bhushan Kumar[2] and Bhushan Kumar[2] has, subsequently, received the imprimatur of the Supreme Court, no reliance could legitimately be placed, by the DSIIDC, on Naresh Gupta[7]. Conclusion

45. In view of the above, following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Bhushan Kumar[2] and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kavita Ahuja[4], read with the subsequent order in Yashpal Madan[8], it is held that the petitioner is entitled to the alternate industrial plot earmarked for the petitioner as per the allotment letter dated 7th May 2004. In case the said plot has been allotted to any another person, the DSIIDC shall allot a plot of equivalent area to the petitioner, as was directed by the Supreme Court in Kavita Ahuja[4].

46. A writ of mandamus shall accordingly issue. The DSIIDC is directed to comply with the present judgement within 3 months from today, and to submit a compliance report to this Court within 2 weeks thereof.

47. The petition stands allowed accordingly, with no order as to costs.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J