Supreme Court: In an appeal against orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’), wherein the NCDRC allowed a revision petition filed by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation /respondent, the division bench of S. Ravindra Bhat* and Dipankar Datta JJ. held that the appellant/allottee is only entitled to refund of the sum of 1,66,425/- which was paid for the plot. However, there is no denial of the fact that the cheque issued to him was returned and HSIDC had the benefit of those monies all these years. In these circumstances, HSIDC is directed to refund the sum of ₹ 1,66,425/- with interest at 6% p.a. from 18-09-1998 till date. The amounts shall be paid to the appellant, within six weeks of this judgment.
In the case at hand, the appellant, a proprietary applied for an industrial plot on 28-02-1994 in Industrial State Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. On 02-11-1995 possession was handed over to the appellant. An agreement was executed between HSIDC and the appellant, in which he agreed to complete the project in 2 years. The agreement also contained the condition that extension could be granted upon payment of a fee. The appellant was called upon to show cause why he did not complete construction and set up the unit. Upon receiving this notice, he replied that he could not start the unit due to lack of infrastructural facilities. Since appellant did not come forward to satisfy the HSIDC by producing any document in response to its letter about the steps taken, HSIDC, resumed the plot stating that the appellant was not serious in implementing the project and that the plot was lying vacant. Thus, HSIDC enclosed a cheque with the letter towards the refund and the appellant was requested to handover the possession of the plot to the Field Officer.
The appellant approached the District Forum, Gurgaon with a complaint. The District Forum, Gurgaon, assumed that since the State Government has changed the policy without referring to the policy, it went on to hold that the complainant was unable to complete the project not on account of negligence on the part of the complainant but because of the circumstances which were beyond his control. HSIDC appealed to the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal, upon which HSIDC filed a revision petition before the NCDRC, which was dismissed on the ground of delay.
The Court noted that the appellant’s arguments were two-fold: First is that HSIDC violated principles of natural justice, did not grant him a hearing and unilaterally cancelled the allotment. The second was that, in the absence of essential infrastructural facilities such as roads, overall development of the industrial area availability of electricity and other amenities, HSIDC could not have expected the appellant or any other allottee to construct the plot within the time granted, i.e., two years.
The Court took note of the agreement between HSIDC and the appellant and observed that there is nothing on the record even till date pointing to any plan to construct a factory or industrial unit. He did not supply any plans for approval; nor did he ever show any inclination to procure the needed machinery and equipment required for his proposed industrial unit. Other steps such as securing tax registration, etc., too were not shown to have been taken. Thus, it concluded that that appellant was always insincere and perhaps never intended to follow up and set up the industrial project.
The Court said that, in the present case the facts are stark; the appellant never made any genuine effort to start its unit. There is no material to disclose that upon receipt of no less than three show cause notices, the appellant showed any sense of urgency in taking steps to live up to setting up the industrial unit. Further, it inferred that the appellant’s intention was perhaps never to set up any industrial unit, despite its promise to the contrary, and speculatively deal with the plot. Thus, it opined that the impugned order does not call for interference.
[Aman Semi-Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Haryana State Industrial Devlopment Corpn. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 195]
Judgment by: Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
