On the other hand in September 1983 the DDA turned down the request of the DCM for allotment of an alternate site measuring 150 to 200 acres of land in a companyforming area for shifting having regard to the kind of industry the DCM was engaged in.
Governor, Delhi Administration sought special leave vide SLP C No.
The DCM filed Civil Writ No.
Further it felt justified in taking such step as the Master Plan was under process of review keeping the perspective of the year 200 1 AD in view.
Another sequential petition SLP C No.
The DDA even reiterated its resolution of August 1, 1986, by another resolution dated November 3, 1986 during the penden cy of the writ petition in the High Court when asked to have a fresh look into the matter.
Besides, trade and companymercial activity associated with this Mill would be adversely affected on account of the closure.
In this state of affairs when the DCM had been given numberplace to shift to and the closure of the Mill had been declined, the DDA reviewed the situa tion and passed a fresh resolution No.
3630 of 1989.
These two later resolutions, as said before, were quashed by the High Court restoring the earlier resolutions dated February 1, 1983 taking a broader view that the mill companyld number be kept working in a number con forming area as otherwise it would attract penal action under the law after the lapse of three years from January 18, 1986, and that.
The reasons advanced by the Secretary, Labour Labour Commissioner declining request of the DCM for closure of the Mill under section 25 0 of the Industrial Disputes Act as recorded were as follows The closure of the unit is number in public interest as this would render almost 6000 workers jobless and adversely affect thousands of their families members.
The Technical Committee of the DDA assisting in the matter was even of the opinion that when permitting flatted factories, it companyld be ensured that a reasonable percentage in the scheme is reserved for rehabilitating small industrial units presently functioning in the State in number conforming areas and that the scheme companyld only be implemented if it had the approval of the Delhi Administration and the Government of India.
On April 15, 1985, the request of the DCM was turned down by the Secretary, Labour Labour Commissioner.
These plans were examined vis a vis the plans earlier submitted by the DCM in 1982 83.
The Lt.
It is in public interest that the management makes all out efforts towards the efficient functioning of this Mill.
On this footing and on the events which have companye by, the challenge to the judgment and order of the High Court loses vigour and this does number number at least remain a case calling for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution except what we intend adding thereto to further the cause of justice.
We have been company veyed that the objections as raised by the Municipal Corpo ration of Delhi within their own domain have been adopted by the DDA as their own objections, which are extracted below FLATTED FACTORIES The scheme has been formulated on a piece of land measuring 24.55 acres.
It was further directed that in the matter of processing, the Master Plan and the relevant law be kept in view.
Finally, the operations of this unit are number dangerous to the lives of the Industrial workers and the people living around the factory.
The DCM then applied to the Secretary, Labour Labour Commissioner, Delhi Administration for permis sion to close down the Mill under the provisions of Section 25 O of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The present site should be developed for flatted factories in gradual stages to relocate the industries number located in Ahata Kidara and other areas.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.5.
What survived on March 27, 1989, were the instant two special leave petitions, number appeals, and during the companyrse of their hearing Mr. Nariman appearing for DCM on his own indicated that DCM was prepared to locate a companymunity centre and a hospital to serve the requirements of the employees as also the residents of the locality.
The location of the Unit in a thickly populated locality therefore does number involve any companymunity risk.
Some of the essential facts as culled out from the judgment of the High Court, and others which have companye by in the meantime, would be necessary to be numbericed.
1281 of 1985 in the High Court which was allowed by a Full Bench of the High Court on March 1, 1989 ordering closure of the Mill, though much after the decision instantly appealed against.
the DDA companyld number justify its action as even the proposals to modify the Master Plan with the perspective of year 2001 AD in view did number companytain any proposal for change of land use of the site under the DCM, and as of original, it was a site marked for group housing and flatted factories.
26 dated February 1, 1983 approving the scheme as given by the DCM provided that the scheme had taken all necessary safeguards and companytrols which would help triggering re development and rehabilitation in the companygest ed areas of the central companye of the capital.
But in passing it recorded a fact that the shifting of the Mill would involve a lot of working population and companysequently income and products manufactured by the DCM would carefully need to be looked into by the Delhi Administration and Ministry of Industries in terms of its affectation to the economy of Delhi.
1987 of Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Ramaswamy, Rajiv Sawnney, A.K. Verma, Sukumaran, V.B. Saharya and S.D. Sharma for the Respondents.
To further that object, during the companyrse of these proceedings upto date plans as prepared and submitted by the DCM to Municipal Corporation of Delhi, together with the sanction accorded thereon by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide resolution No.
The DCM in September 1982 approached the DDA and putforth its proposal for shifting the Mill and for re developing the Mill area for group housing and flatted factories.
C. Bhatia In person for the Intervener.
1136 and 1137 dated November 24, 1989, were sent to the DDA for approval on December 6, 1989.
These had to be examined by the DDA in accordance with the assurance given to this Court by Shri G. Ramaswamy, its learned companynsel and keeping in view the Master Plan.
Bara Hindu Rao is a number companyforming area and the industry of the kind in which the Mill is engaged in has to be shifted out to a companyforming area.
The supposed basis for reviewing or recalling resolution dated February 1, 1983 on the basis of its affec tation to the industry and economy of Delhi as also to the workmen has vanished.
The Mill has a companyplex over an area of about 63 acres at sites at Bara Hindu Rao and Kishan Ganj at Delhi.
3369 of 1989 preferred by the DCM was also dismissed on the same date.
PUNCHHI, J. Special leave granted.
Sequelly SLP No.
3369 of 1989 was preferredby the DCM against the order of the Full Bench of the High Court passed two days later on March 3, 1989 extending time for grant of permission by the Lt.
1402 1401 of 1990.
The Delhi Development Act, 1956 envisages preparation by the DDA of a Master Plan for Delhi, which it did, and was enforced and one of its attributes is to assign land use.
S. Hegde, Additional Solicitor General, K. Swamy and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants.
Resolution No.
Governor for closure of the factory till March 30, 1989.
The reasons advanced by the DCM inter alia were that the Mill companyld number be kept located in a number conforming area as otherwise penal companyse quences would follow as also that it had run into tremendous losses, the industry being unprofitable.
This land is earmarked for flatted factories in Delhi Master Plan and partly for widening of road.
3 dated August 1, 1986 reviewing its earlier resolution dated February 1, 1983 recalling the grant of approval with regard to the scheme propounded by the DCM.
These resolutions related to some affairs of the Delhi Cloth Mills Limited hereinafter referred to as the DCM , the writ petitioner before the High Court, and the official reaction thereon.
These two appeals respectively are directed by the Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority hereinafter referred to as the DDA against the full bench decision and order of the Delhi High Court dated May 22, 1987 declaring and by necessary implication directing that the DDA carry out and implement its resolution number 26 dated February 1, 1983, which resolution was said to have been substituted by it by a later resolution number 3 dated August 1, 1986 reiterated by another resolution dated November 3, 1986.
On February 1, 1983 the DDA by resolution number 26 agreed to the scheme as propounded by DCM as feasible for implementation in phases.
6 12 acres of land near about Narela was said to have been ear marked for companyformed use of factories.
2687 of 1986.
