High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs On Delhi Government For Disregarding Court Orders; Directs Recovery From Officers’ Salaries

The Court was hearing the industrial unit’s fourth writ petition concerning its application for an alternative industrial plot under the Relocation Scheme, 1996. The present petition challenged the authorities’ latest communication rejecting the claim despite earlier orders requiring them to process the application. The Court has not yet finally decided the challenge and has listed the matter for further consideration.

A Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed: “This Court is of the opinion that it is on account of the conduct and inaction of the officers of the respondents that the petitioner’s grievance has remained unresolved for several years, compelling it to approach this Court repeatedly. The manner in which the matter has been dealt with reflects a complete disregard for the orders passed by this Court and has resulted in an avoidable wastage of valuable judicial time.”

Advocate Tarun Sharma appeared for the petitioner. Panel Counsel Avni Singh represented the GNCTD. Advocate Sonal Anand appeared for DSIIDC, the second respondent.

Background

The petitioner had originally applied for an alternative industrial plot under the Relocation Scheme, 1996. Its claim was rejected on the ground that its unit was situated in a conforming industrial area.

In the first round of litigation, counsel for the Commissioner of Industries informed the High Court that the matter had been re-examined and that the petitioner’s unit was situated in a non-conforming area. The authorities stated that the petitioner was consequently entitled to an alternative plot. On the strength of that statement, the Court quashed the rejection and directed the respondents to process the application and communicate their decision within two months.

The petitioner approached the Court again after the application remained unprocessed. In the second round, the Court recorded that the earlier order had attained finality because the respondents had neither sought its review nor challenged it in appeal. The authorities stated that the original files concerning the petitioner’s application were no longer available.

The Court nevertheless held that the respondents remained bound to comply with the earlier order. It directed the petitioner to produce one of the documents recognised by the applicable policy to establish that its unit had existed in the area before the cut-off date. The respondents stated that the application would be processed without further objection if such a document was produced.

The petitioner relied on a Sales Tax Registration Certificate indicating that its factory had existed at the relevant premises from 1994. The Court permitted the respondents to verify the document and directed them to process the application if its authenticity was established.

The petitioner later instituted a third writ petition, alleging continued non-compliance despite having furnished the required documents. The Court directed the authorities to treat that petition as a representation, consider the documents within six weeks and afford the petitioner a personal hearing if the applicable rules permitted one.

The authorities subsequently rejected the claim again, leading to the present proceedings.

Court’s Observations

Earlier Order Had Attained Finality

The Court noted that the respondents had expressly accepted in the first round of litigation that the petitioner’s industrial unit was situated in a non-conforming area and that it was entitled to an alternative industrial plot. The earlier rejection had been quashed on that basis, and the respondents had been directed to process the application within two months.

The Court observed: “The order dated 05.03.2009 was never challenged by the respondents and has attained finality. Despite the same, the respondents have continued to act in disregard of the said order.”

Authorities Undertook To Process Claim Without Further Objection

During the second round of litigation, the authorities had stated that their original files were unavailable. The Court nonetheless required them to comply with the final order and process the application once the petitioner produced a document of the kind recognised by their policy.

The earlier order recorded the respondents’ statement that the application would be processed without further objection if the petitioner produced one of the prescribed documents. It added: “The respondents are bound down to the said statement.”

The present Court noted that the application remained pending for years despite these directions, repeatedly compelling the petitioner to invoke the High Court’s jurisdiction.

Claim Of An Earlier Incorrect Statement Was Unsupported

The respondents subsequently contended that an incorrect statement had been made before the Court during the earlier proceedings. The Court found that they had not produced the original records or contemporaneous material supporting that explanation.

It observed: “Though it has subsequently been contended on behalf of the respondents that an incorrect statement had been made before this Court in the earlier proceedings, the respondents have been unable to produce the original records or any contemporaneous material to substantiate the said contention.”

The Court described the respondents’ handling of the matter as deplorable. It found that their conduct reflected disregard for binding court orders and had forced the petitioner to return to court repeatedly over a grievance that had remained unresolved for several years.

Conclusion

Before proceeding further with the writ petition, the Court imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the GNCTD. It directed the Government to pay the amount to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within six weeks and recover it from the salaries of the officers responsible for the state of affairs.

The petition remains pending and was directed to be listed for further consideration.

Cause Title: Central Footwear Co. v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Another

Appearances

Petitioner: Tarun Sharma with Abid Ali, Manek Sharma and Karrtik Sharma, Advocates

Respondents: Avni Singh, Panel Counsel, with Vaibhav Sharma and Sanskriti Nautiyal, Advocates; Sonal Anand, Advocate

Click here to read/download Order