JUDGMENT
K. Shivshankar Bhat, J.
(1) The petitioner challenges the order rejecting this application for an industrial plot in Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase I & Ii, Delhi and further seeks a direction to the respondents to allot him a plot measuring 200 Sq. mts. at Rs. 200.00 per sq. mt” in the said Industrial Area.
(2) Petitioner has been carrying on industrial activity under the name of M/s.Apsara Industries (earlier, the name was M/s. Cheap Stationery Supply Company)at premises No. K-30, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The industry was started in the year1973. The place where the petitioner has been running his industry is in a “Non-Conforming Area” CNCA’ for short). Locating the industries in Nca and their continued presence in those areas are opposed to the master plan and therefore those industries had to be shifted, failing which the industrialists faced prosecution. The Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’) came forward with a scheme to allot industrial plot to those industrialists elsewhere. In the year 1976, the DDA announced a scheme under which the industries in Nca or the areas which were under acquisition for various public purposes, were given an opportunity to apply for industrial plots in other areas developed or to be developed for the saidpurpose. The scheme stated that it was the last opportunity given to the industries to close down in the Nca and seek plots under the scheme. The initial announcement required the applicants to deposit the specified earnest money only. Subse-quently, in July, 1976 another scheme (or a scheme supplemented to the earlier scheme) was announced, under which the applicants were required to deposit as pecified percentage of the price of the plot on different dates. Petitioner had deposited Rs. 500.00 an earnest money earlier: under the July 1976 Scheme, he,deposited a sum of Rs. 12,000.00 being the appropriate percentage of the value of the plot applied for. Petitioner was anxious to get the industrial plot; but, the locality where plots are to be found, were not developed at all by the Dda for several years.In the circumstances, petitioner sought refund of the advance paid by him, as pera letter dated 20.10.1977. In the letter petitioner specifically requested the Dda to keep with it the earnest money and further added a ‘note’ stating that as and when an industrial plot is made available, he would deposit the requisite amount, on intimation from the DDA. Petitioner also stated that the deposit already kept with it by the petitioner was not earning any interest and Dda had not developed appropriate plots for allotments.On 25.4.1978, a sum of Rs. 12,500.00 was refunded to the petitioner. In September 1979, petitioner came to know that industrial plots were getting ready for allotment. In fact, the factory of the petitioner was surveyed on 26.8.1979 by the Surveyor ; hence, petitioner wrote on 7.9.1979 requesting to consider his case sympathetically and sought allotment of a plot; petitioner requested for an instruction to deposit the 30% of the value or any other suitable sum. On 12.9.1979 the petitioner wrote again explaining the reasons for seeking the refund of the earlier advance paid by him and requested the allotment of a plot to him. Petitioner enclosed a Bank Draft for Rs. 12,500.00 in favor of the DDA. The draft was not returned to the petitioner but was in the office of the Dda without encashment. On28.2:1980, Dda had informed the General Secretary of Multi Small Scale Industries Association (of which petitioner was a member), that “the cases of allotment of industrial plots to those who had applied in the year 1976 and had also deposited30% of the premium is under the active consideration of the Delhi Development Authority and the decisions taken in this regard will be intimated to you in due course of time.” Another letter dated 18.8.1980, to the Association stated that there has been a decision to allot industrial plots to nearly 300 applicants. On 19.7.1980,decision to allot the plots to the applicant was announced through another letter to the aforesaid Association. On 24.5.1980 petitioner made one more representation seeking allotment of a plot pointing out the deposits made Along with the letter dated 19.9.1979. In another representation dated 10.6.1980, petitioner pointed out that his factory was surveyed on 26.8.1979. On 22.10.1981, another letter was written by the petitioner. This was repeated on 2.8.1982. One more reminder was sent on 29.5.1985. On 21.4.1987 petitioner deposited bank slip for Rs. 12,500.00which was banker draft, because, it was realised that the bank draft given on12.9.1979 was not encashed by the Dda and this amount stood blocked without use to anyone; as the earlier draft became useless, petitioner deposited, again, a sum of Rs. 12,500.00 on 9.4.1987, and this time the draft was encashed by the DDA.Thereafter on 21.4.1987, the bank slip for Rs. 12,500.00 was deposited.
(3) However, by a letter dated 31.7.1987 (Annexure D-7) the petitioner was informed that his case was considered, but the request of the petitioner could not be “acceded to at this late stage” as the petitioner had already taken the refund of the amount deposited in the year 1976.On 1.7.1988, the petitioner sought the refund of the amount of Rs. 12,500.00deposited by him on 21.4.1987. Petitioner once again sought its refund on10.8.1988, this was repeated on 9.9.1988. Respondents did not care to reply to theseletters; the amount deposited with the respondents continued with them, eventhough, normally, it should have been promptly refunded when petitioner’sapplication for allotment was rejected. In the circumstances, the petitioner, asserts that the rejection of the application was not acted upon. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to allot a plot to him. During the pendency of the writ petition petitioner wrote two letters to the respondents seeking allotment of a plot; but the mighty silence of the Dda and its officers could not be shaken.
(4) In the counter affidavit, the respondents contend that, since the petitioner took refund of the deposit made in the year 1976, he was not eligible for allotment of the plot under the Scheme announced in the said year. But for this refund, no other ineligibility is attributed to the petitioner.
(5) Question, therefore, is, whether petitioner is entitled to seek allotment of an industrial plot under the Schemes announced in the year 1976.
(6) While considering this question, it is relevant to bear in mind the feature of the Scheme under which plots are to be allotted and the manner in which the applications were to be considered.
(7) The initial announcement of the Scheme (Annexure 'A') states that it was to be "Another opportunity to the industries functioning in the non-conformingarea". The 2nd para further, says: "THIS is the final opportunity for the industries and industrialists concerned are advised in their own interest to avail of this last opportunity and help the authorities in not resorting to the penal provisions including clearance." (8) The applications shall have to be made in the prescribed form; the form?contain the detailed terms and conditions of allotment, including the rates at which the allotment would be made. Earnest money payable was dependent upon the size of the plot applied for. Price of the land to be allotted shall have to be paid in four quarterly Installments - 25% at the time of taking over possession, 25% after three months, another25%afteranother three months and final payment of another25% after another three months. The last date for receipt of the application was 3 1/03/1976. This date was extended. Subsequently, petitioner made the application and deposited the earnest money of Rs. 500.00 on 7.4.1976. Subsequently, there was another announcement (Annexure B). This is stated to be: "Information Regarding Allotment of Developed Plots, Built-up Space/Sheds To Non-Conforming Units".The opening paragraph reads:- "THE Delhi Development Authority is developing about 700 Hecte. of land and constructing industrial space/sheds in four industrial areas, namely;Patparganj Industrial Area in the East, Hyderpur Industrial Area in theNorth, Mangolpur Industrial Area in the West and Okhla Industrial Area in the South. Non-conforming industrial units situated in Delhi may, like to apply for allotment of plots in industrial scheme nearest to their presentlocations. Provision has been made for location of different type of industries in each of these Schemes. Details are given below:"
(9) Rates to be charged for the plots are given in a subsequent paragraph. The mode of payment was to be:- Mode of Payment Developed Plots Built-up Space or sheds1. 30% of the total premium 50% of the total premium of the plot has to be of the built-up space/paid by 31st Oct. 1976. shed has to be paid by31st Oct., 1976.The balance of the premium paid at the time of handing over of the built up space/shed.2. 30% of the total premium of the plot has to be paid at the time of handing over the plot.3. The balance of the premium has to be paid when the development is completed.
In the application form, the applicant shall have to give the nature of presentindustry, its location, etc. However, the form nowhere insists that Municipal License for the industry should be annexed. It requires the applicant to give the details of the Municipal License “if any”. Therefore, furnishing of a copy of the Municipal License was not a mandatory requirement.
(10) The Scheme, as initially announced required the deposit of an earnestmoney; but no part payment of the value of the plots. It required payment of the value in four Installments’ the first Installment was to be at the time of taking over possession of the plot by the allottee. The subsequent announcement provided that in the case of developed plots 30% of the total premium of the plot to be payable by31.10.1976 and the balance in two more Installments. This subsequent announcement, obviously, was part of the Scheme as announced earlier and the terms for allotment are to be gathered from this second announcement.
(11) The Dda could not develop the plots in time. In fact, no particular time for allotment of plots was indicated in the Scheme. The allotments were actually made in or about the year 1987. Decision not to allot the plot to the petitioner was taken only on 31.7.1987 (Annexure D-7). Ever since the year 1980, the Dda was writing to the Association of the small scale industrialists that plots are being developed and would be allotted early. Those small scale industrialists, who applied for the plots had to deposit 30% of the price of the plots. Several hundreds(about 300) applicants kept their deposits with the Dda throughout except the petitioner.
(12) The petitioner sought the refund of the advance paid by him; he contends that he had made it conditional that he would redeposit the amount immediately he was asked to make the payment. In fact, he redeposited the refunded amount by way of Bank Draft within 17 months of the refund; but the officers of the DDA kept the draft without encashing the same; the draft was not even returned to the petitioner and according to the petitioner he was writing several letters and making repeated representations all those years till July, 1987, but, not a single reply was given to him stating that his application will not be considered as he had obtained the refund of the earlier advance. Petitioner complains that Dda has been procrastinating the allotment of plots.
(13) The short question is whether the petitioner is entitled to invoke the scheme and seek a plot.
(14) Petitioner relies on the scheme. The scheme requires an applicant to pay30% of the price in advance. The advance has to be current and should be kept with the DDA. Petitioner, no doubt made this payment. But, subsequently he withdrewit. According to him, his withdrawal was conditional and that he sought refund of the advance on the condition that he would re-deposit it whenever Dda intimated him to do so. This condition governs the refund, says the petitioner.
(15) The Scheme does not provide for such a refund. If refund was permissible subject to the condition that it may be re-deposited when plots are made ready,even other applicants should have been given a similar facility. Dda had not reserved any power in it to deviate from the terms of the scheme, in individualcases. Petitioner cannot impose his own terms modifying the scheme.
(16) The re-deposit made by .the petitioner by way of Bank draft was not encashed at all. Later, petitioner made another payment. Petitioner contends that since Dda received this payment, it can not now say that petitioner is ineligible to seek a plot. This contention ignores the fact that payments made at the counter of the Dda need not always be considered as a valid payment. There is nothing to indicate that encashment of this payment by the Dda officials was an authorisedencashment. Further, this payment was in the year 1987 which was much after the date fixed for payment under the Scheme.
(17) In these circumstances, it is not possible to direct the Dda to allot a plot to the petitioner.
(18) At the same time, the conduct of the Dda in not refunding the amount to the petitioner while rejecting his application for the plot, cannot be appreciated.Inspite of the repeated requests of the petitioner, Dda continued to maintain a wooden silence. A public authority owes to itself and to the public that it should be prompt in refunding the amount payable to the citizens by it. Dda has no explanation for this negligence on its part. It is bound to refund the refundable amount to the petitioner without undue delay. Dda has to compensate the petitioner for the retention of this sum.
(19) Consequently, while rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for the allotment ofa plot, I direct the respondents to refund the petitioner the sum of Rs. 12,500.00 with interest therein at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from the date of the letter hereunder petitioner was told that application for the plot was rejected. Petitioner is also entitled to the cost of this writ petition; Dda shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000.00 as costs to the petitioner.
(20) The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.