Vikramajit Sen, J. - (1.) -In this batch of petitions an assault has been launched on the decision of the respondents to cancel the allotment of plots to the. petitioners after having received from them full payment of the sale consideration. Although the matter was heard on several dates, only respondent No. 2, Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (DSIDC), has resisted the Petitions. The basis of the defence of the DSIDC is that a change of Policy at the end of Respondents other than them had taken place and, therefore, the Petitioners are not entitled to object to the revised Terms of Allotment. It is noteworthy that these assertions have not been stated by the Government of NCT (Respondent No. 1) who had allegedly altered the Policy.
(2.) I had occasion to consider the annals of this dispute in Super Electricals v.Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 124 (2005) DLT 268=2005 VIII AD (Delhi) 54. The events leading to the shifting of non-conforming industries shall not be reiterated with a view to avoid prolixity. Owing entirely to the initiative of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and its intervention in the deplorable and further deteriorating state of the environment in several residential areas of the metropolis, polluting industries carrying out non conforming activities were ordered to close down. The immediate effect, easily perceptible, was a marked improvement in the quality of air in public interest. Since pleadings have been completed in CW No. 4039/2003, this Writ Petition has been treated as the lead case. The Petitioners had applied for plots of varying sizes, not in excess of 400 square meters, in ratio to the area of land used for carrying on non-conforming manufacturing activities. Some of the Petitioners had challenged the actual area allotted to them on the ground that it does not correctly correspond to the area that was being used by it at the time of the closure orders. That challenge has not been argued before me as the argument of the Petitioners is that a concluded contract had come into existence which would remain impervious to any so-called change in Policy.
(3.) In compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court applications were invited in Circa 1986. In March 1998 the DSIDC informed the Petitioner that its application "has been found to be in order/deficient in some respects" and for this reason information/documents were called for. In addition thereto the Petitioner was called upon to deposit an amount of Rs. 69,750/- which was equivalent "to 30% of the estimated cost of the plot after adjusting the earnest money with interest accrued @ 7% w.e.f. 1.1.97 already deposited". Petitioner was warned that if this deposit was not made within 60 days interest at the rate of 18 per cent would be charged on the delayed payment. Counsel for the parties have emphasised the 4th paragraph of this letter which is reproduced for this reason:;