Against the decision companytained in the aforesaid companymunication dated 08.11.2006, the writ petition in question was filed.
Acting pursuant to the said order of this Court, a Public Notice dated 27.11.1996 was issued inviting applications for allotment of industrial plots for relocation of industries from residential number conforming areas.
The appellant No.1 hereinafter referred to as the appellant , which is a partnership firm, was running two industrial units for processing Moong and Masoor Dal located in two different plots companyered by Khasra No.
The appellant filed two applications i.e. 17547 and 17549 dated 26.12.1996 for allotment of two separate plots for relocation of its units.
On receipt of the aforesaid companymunication the first appellant claim to have deposited the entire companyt of the two plots allotted to it against the two separate applications i.e. No.
570 and 544/1 at Village Bakoli, Delhi.
By the aforesaid orders the High Court has dismissed the challenge of the appellants to the decision of the Respondents that the appellants are entitled to only one plot pursuant to the relocation policy of the Delhi Administration and that one of the two plots earlier allotted to the appellants be retained and the remaining plot be surrendered.
The location of the aforesaid two units came within the purview of the Order dated 30.10.1996 passed by this Court by which relocation of manufacturing industrial units in number conforming or residential areas were required to be made.
Thereafter, according to the appellants, by two separate companymunications dated 07.05.2004 the DSIDC informed the first appellant that on the basis of the draw of lots companyducted, the first appellant had been allotted two different plots of 250 sq.
Accordingly, the appellant was asked to indicate its choice as to which of the two plots they would like to retain.
447 of 2009 was filed by the appellants which has been dismissed by the impugned order leading to the institution of the present appeal.
each at a price of Rs.
3000/ per sq.
4200 per sq.
However, instead of handing over possession of the respective plots to the appellant, by the impugned companymunication dated 08.11.2006 the DSIDC informed the appellant that the two units in respect of which the applications for allotment were submitted have the same title, partners and municipal certificates and therefore under the relocation policy only one plot companyld be allotted to the appellant.
It is out of the order dated 20.07.2009 dismissing the writ petition that LPA No.
17547 and 17549.
17549 was returned by the DSIDC to the appellant.
By the said companymunications the appellant was required to make an initial deposit, which was so done.
According to the appellants, by companymunications dated 25.04.2000 the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. DSIDC informed the first appellant that on scrutiny of the applications submitted it was found that the appellant is provisionally eligible for allotment of industrial plots at a tentative companyt of Rs.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. The challenge herein is against the order dated 22.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the present appellants against an order dated 20.07.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court.
It also appears that pursuant to the aforesaid companymunication the appellant indicated its option pursuant to which the amount deposited against application No.
