|
Holding that the prolonged grievance of an industrial unit remained unresolved due to the conduct and inaction of the authorities, the Delhi High Court has imposed Rs 1 lakh costs on the Delhi government and directed it to recover the amount from the salaries of officers responsible for the present state of affairs.
Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the petitioner had been compelled to approach the High Court repeatedly over several years, while the manner in which the matter was handled reflected a complete disregard for the Courts earlier orders and resulted in avoidable wastage of valuable judicial time. The Court directed the Delhi government to pay Rs 1 lakh to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within six weeks and recover the amount from the salaries of the officers responsible. The matter has been listed for February 9, 2027. The order came on a petition filed by Central Footwear Co., which is seeking allotment of an alternative industrial plot under the Relocation Scheme, 1996. Justice Mahajan noted that the present case marked the fourth round of litigation by the petitioner before the High Court. The company had initially challenged the rejection of its claim for an alternative industrial plot on the ground that its industrial unit was situated in a conforming area. In the earlier proceedings, however, the authorities had informed the Court, after re-examining the matter, that the petitioners industrial unit at Swarn Park, Mundka, was situated in a non-conforming area and that it was entitled to an alternative industrial plot. Recording this submission, the High Court had in March 2009 quashed the order rejecting the companys claim and directed the authorities to process its application expeditiously and communicate a decision within two months. Despite the directions, the petitioners application was not processed, resulting in another round of litigation in 2015. The High Court had then noted that its earlier order had attained finality and directed the authorities to process the application after verification of the documents produced by the petitioner. The petitioner was subsequently compelled to approach the Court once again in 2024, seeking compliance with the earlier orders. The Court directed the authorities to consider the documents submitted by the petitioner, but the claim was again rejected through a communication dated August 20, 2024. The High Court said the authorities had kept the petitioners application pending for several years instead of complying with the directions issued in 2009. It noted that the earlier order had never been challenged and had attained finality. The respondents had subsequently contended that an incorrect statement was made before the Court in the earlier proceedings. However, the Court noted that they were unable to produce the original records or any contemporaneous material to substantiate the contention. Observing that it was because of the conduct and inaction of the authorities that the petitioners grievance remained unresolved for years, the Court said the repeated litigation could have been avoided had the earlier judicial directions been properly complied with. Describing the handling of the matter as deplorable, the Court imposed the monetary costs on the GNCTD before proceeding further in the matter. (ANI)
|
