Bhagwati Plastics Industries vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
- SCC1989 Supp (1) SCC 551
- AIRAIR 1989 SC 1592
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a High Court dismisses a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without examining the substantive merits of the applicant's claim, relying instead on a bare assertion by an administrative authority that contradicts documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, the Supreme Court will set aside such dismissal and remit the matter for fresh consideration on the merits by the High Court.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. The appellant carries on business in the name and style of Bhagwati Plastics Industries which was located in a tenanted premises at 11, Gadodia Road, Anand Parbat area within New Delhi and has now been shifted to 17 Gododia Road. The appellant contends that this is a non-conforming area for purposes of business according to the Master Plan and he was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the scheme of the Delhi Development Authority (a respondent herein) under which the benefit of shifting of the factory from a non-conforming area to an alternate site to be allotted was permitted. The appellant made such an application in April 1976 and in due course deposited a part of the price. He also submitted a certificate from the Municipal Council of Delhi to the effect that his factory was located in a non conforming area. The appellant was intimated of allotment of a plot in Mangol Puri area but since the allotment was not specific the appellant again applied for specification thereof. Ultimately on 14.1.1988, the respondent directed refund of the money and on 22.3.1988, the appellant received a cheque for the sum. Thereupon he applied to Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a mandamus to the respondents that the appellant be allotted a suitable plot under the scheme on the basis of his application. The High Court by order dated May 2, 1988, dismissed the petition saying :
On 26th October, 1987 (Annexure-1) the DDA had informed the petitioner that the Anand Parbat area is conforming area. The petitioner states that a part of the area in Anand Parbat where his factory is located is not conforming area. We cannot accept this submission in the face of the DDA's statement that this is a conforming area. The petition is dismissed.
3. The appellant has produced certain documents which show that the factory of the appellant is located in a non-conforming area. The Municipal Authorities have tried to explain their own document wherein the admission is contained. We are satisfied that this is a case which should have been examined on merit by the High Court. We accordingly set aside the order of dismissal of the writ petition and remit it to the High Court for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. The writ petition shall be taken to have been admitted. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order for costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free