K. Shivshankar Bhat, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the order rejectingthis application for an industrial plot in Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase I and II,new Delhi and further seeks a direction to the respondents to allot him a plotmeasuring 200 Sq. mts. at Rs. 200. 00 per sq. mt" in the said Industrial Area. ( 2 ) PETITIONER has been carrying on industrial activity under the name of M/s. Apsara Industries (earlier, the name was M/s. Cheap Stationery Supply Company)at premises No. K-30, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The industry was started in the year1973. The place where the petitioner has been running his industry is in a "non-Conforming Area" CNCA for short ). Locating the industries in NCA and theircontinued presence in those areas are opposed to the master plan and thereforethose industries had to be shifted, failing which the industrialists faced prosecu-tion. The Delhi Development Authority ( dda ) came forward with a scheme toallot industrial plot to those industrialists elsewhere. In the year 1976, the DDAannounced a scheme under which the industries in NCA or the areas which wereunder acquisition for various public purposes, were given an opportunity to applyfor industrial plots in other areas developed or to be developed for the saidpurpose. The scheme stated that it was the last opportunity given to the industriesto close down in the NCA and seek plots under the scheme. The initial announce-ment required the applicants to deposit the specified earnest money only. Subse-quently, in July, 1976 another scheme (or a scheme supplemented to the earlier scheme) was announced, under which the applicants were required to deposit aspecified percentage of the price of the plot on different dates. Petitioner haddeposited Rs. 500. 00 an earnest money earlier: under the July 1976 Scheme, he,deposited a sum of Rs. 12,000. 00 being the appropriate percentage of the value of theplot applied for. Petitioner was anxious to get the industrial plot; but, the localitywhere plots are to be found, were not developed at all by the DDA for several years. In the circumstances, petitioner sought refund of the advance paid by him, as pera letter dated 20. 10. 1977. In the letter petitioner specifically requested the DDA tokeep with it the earnest money and further added a note stating that as and whenan industrial plot is made available, he would deposit the requisite amount, onintimation from the DDA. In the circumstances, petitioner sought refund of the advance paid by him, as pera letter dated 20. 10. 1977. In the letter petitioner specifically requested the DDA tokeep with it the earnest money and further added a note stating that as and whenan industrial plot is made available, he would deposit the requisite amount, onintimation from the DDA. Petitioner also stated that the deposit already kept withit by the petitioner was not earning any interest and DDA had not developedappropriate plots for allotments. On 25. 4. 1978, a sum of Rs. 12,500. 00 was refunded to the petitioner. Inseptember 1979, petitioner came to know that industrial plots were getting readyfor allotment. In fact, the factory of the petitioner was surveyed on 26. 8. 1979 by thesurveyor ; hence, petitioner wrote on 7. 9. 1979 requesting to consider his casesympathetically and sought allotment of a plot; petitioner requested for an instruction to deposit the 30% of the value or any other suitable sum. On 12. 9. 1979 thepetitioner wrote again explaining the reasons for seeking the refund of the earlieradvance paid by him and requested the allotment of a plot to him. Petitionerenclosed a Bank Draft for Rs. 12,500. 00 in favour of the DDA. The draft was notreturned to the petitioner but was in the office of the DDA without encashment. On28. 2:1980, DDA had informed the General Secretary of Multi Small Scale Industriesassociation (of which petitioner was a member), that "the cases of allotment ofindustrial plots to those who had applied in the year 1976 and had also deposited30% of the premium is under the active consideration of the Delhi Developmentauthority and the decisions taken in this regard will be intimated to you in duecourse of time. " Another letter dated 18. 8. 1980, to the Association stated that therehas been a decision to allot industrial plots to nearly 300 applicants. On 19. 7. 1980,decision to allot the plots to the applicant was announced through another letter tothe aforesaid Association. On 24. 5. 1980 petitioner made one more representationseeking allotment of a plot pointing out the deposits made alongwith the letterdated 19. 9. 1979. In another representation dated 10. 6. 1980, petitioner pointed outthat his factory was surveyed on 26. 8. 1979. On 22. 10. 1981, another letter waswritten by the petitioner. This was repeated on 2. 8. 1982. One more reminder wassent on 29. 5. 1985. On 21. 9. 1979. In another representation dated 10. 6. 1980, petitioner pointed outthat his factory was surveyed on 26. 8. 1979. On 22. 10. 1981, another letter waswritten by the petitioner. This was repeated on 2. 8. 1982. One more reminder wassent on 29. 5. 1985. On 21. 4. 1987 petitioner deposited bank slip for Rs. 12,500. 00which was banker draft, because, it was realised that the bank draft given on12. 9. 1979 was not encashed by the DDA and this amount stood blocked without useto anyone; as the earlier draft became useless, petitioner deposited, again, a sumof Rs. 12,500. 00 on 9. 4. 1987, and this time the draft was encashed by the DDA. Thereafter on 21. 4. 1987, the bank slip for Rs. 12,500. 00 was deposited. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, by a letter dated 31. 7. 1987 (Annexure D-7) the petitioner wasinformed that his case was considered, but the request of the petitioner could notbe "acceded to at this late stage" as the petitioner had already taken the refund ofthe amount deposited in the year 1976. On 1. 7. 1988, the petitioner sought the refund of the amount of Rs. 12,500. 00deposited by him on 21. 4. 1987. Petitioner once again sought its refund on10. 8. 1988, this was repeated on 9. 9. 1988. Respondents did not care to reply to theseletters; the amount deposited with the respondents continued with them, eventhough, normally, it should have been promptly refunded when petitioner sapplication for allotment was rejected. In the circumstances, the petitioner, assertsthat the rejection of the application was not acted upon. Petitioner seeks adirectionto the respondents to allot a plot to him. During the pendency of the writ petitionpetitioner wrote two letters to the respondents seeking allotment of a plot; but themighty silence of the DDA and its officers could not be shaken. ( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit, the respondents contend that, since the petitionertook refund of the deposit made in the year 1976, he was not eligible for allotmentof the plot under the Scheme announced in the said year. But for this refund, noother ineligibility is attributed to the petitioner. ( 5 ) QUESTION, therefore, is, whether petitioner is entitled to seek allotment of anindustrial plot under the Schemes announced in the year 1976. But for this refund, noother ineligibility is attributed to the petitioner. ( 5 ) QUESTION, therefore, is, whether petitioner is entitled to seek allotment of anindustrial plot under the Schemes announced in the year 1976. ( 6 ) WHILE considering this question, it is relevant to bear in mind the feature ofthe Scheme under which plots are to be allotted and the manner in which theapplications were to be considered. ( 7 ) THE initial announcement of the Scheme (Annexure a ) states that it wasto be "another opportunity to the industries functioning in the non-conformingarea". The 2nd para further, says: "this is the final opportunity for the industries and industrialists concernedare advised in their own interest to avail of this last opportunity and help theauthorities in not resorting to the penal provisions including clearance. " ( 8 ) THE applications shall have to be made in the prescribed form; the form?contain the detailed terms and conditions of allotment, including the rates at whichthe allotment would be made. Earnest money payable was dependent upon thesize of the plot applied for. Price of the land to be allotted shall have to be paid infour quarterly instalments - 25% at the time of taking over possession, 25% afterthree months, another25%afteranother three months and final paymentof another25% after another three months. The last date for receipt of the application was 3 1/03/1976. This date was extended. Subsequently, petitioner made the applica-tion and deposited the earnest money of Rs. 500. 00 on 7. 4. 1976. Subsequently, therewas another announcement (Annexure B ). This is stated to be: "informationregarding Allotmentof Developed Plots, Built-upspace/shedstc Non-Conform-ing Units". The opening paragraph reads:- "the Delhi Development Authority is developing about 700 Hecte. of landand constructing industrial space/sheds in four industrial areas, namely;patparganj Industrial Area in the East, Hyderpur Industrial Area in thenorth, Mangolpur Industrial Area in the West and Okhla Industrial Area inthe South. Non-conforming industrial units situated in Delhi may, like toapply for allotment of plots in industrial scheme nearest to their presentlocations. Provision has been made for location of different type of industriesin each of these Schemes. Details are given below:" ( 9 ) RATES to be charged for the plots are given in a subsequent paragraph. Themode of payment was to be:-In the application form, the applicant shall have to give the nature of presentindustry, its location, etc. Provision has been made for location of different type of industriesin each of these Schemes. Details are given below:" ( 9 ) RATES to be charged for the plots are given in a subsequent paragraph. Themode of payment was to be:-In the application form, the applicant shall have to give the nature of presentindustry, its location, etc. However, the form nowhere insists that Municipallicense for the industry should be annexed. It requires the applicant to give thedetails of the Municipal License "if any". Therefore, furnishing of a copy of themunicipal License was not a mandatory requirement. ( 10 ) THE Scheme, as initially announced required the deposit of an earnestmoney; but no part payment of the value of the plots. It required payment of thevalue in four instalments the first instalment was to be at the time of taking overpossession of the plot by the allottee. The subsequent announcement provided thatin the case of developed plots 30% of the total premium of the plot to be payable by31. 10. 1976 and the balance in two more instalments. This subsequent announcement, obviously, was part of the Scheme as announced earlier and the terms forallotment are to be gathered from this second announcement. ( 11 ) THE DDA could not develop the plots in time. In fact, no particular timefor allotment of plots was indicated in the Scheme. The allotments were actuallymade in or about the year 1987. Decision not to allot the plot to the petitioner wastaken only on 31. 7. 1987 (Annexure D-7 ). Ever since the year 1980, the DDA waswriting to the Association of the small scale industrialists that plots are beingdeveloped and would be allotted early. Those small scale industrialists, whoapplied for the plots had to deposit 30% of the price of the plots. Several hundreds (about 300) applicants kept their deposits with the DDA throughout except thepetitioner. ( 12 ) THE petitioner sought the refund of the advance paid by him; he contendsthat he had made it conditional that he would redeposit the amount immediatelyhe was asked to make the payment. Several hundreds (about 300) applicants kept their deposits with the DDA throughout except thepetitioner. ( 12 ) THE petitioner sought the refund of the advance paid by him; he contendsthat he had made it conditional that he would redeposit the amount immediatelyhe was asked to make the payment. In fact, he redeposited the refunded amountby way of Bank Draft within 17 months of the refund; but the officers of the DDAkept the draft without encashing the same; the draft was not even returned to thepetitioner and according to the petitioner he was writing several letters and making repeated representations all those years till July, 1987, but, not a single reply wasgiven to him stating that his application will not be considered as he had obtainedthe refund of the earlier advance. Petitioner complains that DDA has beenprocrastinating the allotment of plots. ( 13 ) THE short question is whether the petitioner is entitled to invoke thescheme and seek a plot. ( 14 ) PETITIONER relies on the scheme. The scheme requires an applicant to pay30% of the price in advance. The advance has to be current and should be kept withthe DDA. Petitioner, no doubt made this payment. But, subsequently he withdrewit. According to him, his withdrawal was conditional and that he sought refund ofthe advance on the condition that he would re-deposit it whenever DDA intimatedhim to do so. This condition governs the refund, says the petitioner. ( 15 ) THE Scheme does not provide for such a refund. If refund was permissiblesubject to the condition that it may be re-deposited when plots are made ready,even other applicants should have been given a similar facility. DDA had notreserved any power in it to deviate from the terms of the scheme, in individualcases. Petitioner cannot impose his own terms modifying the scheme. ( 16 ) THE re-deposit made by. the petitioner by way of Bank draft was notencashed at all. Later, petitioner made another payment. Petitioner contends thatsince DDA received this payment, it can not now say that petitioner is ineligible toseek a plot. This contention ignores the fact that payments made at the counter ofthe DDA need not always be considered as a valid payment. There is nothing toindicate that encashment of this payment by the DDA officials was an authorisedencashment. Further, this payment was in the year 1987 which was much after thedate fixed for payment under the Scheme. This contention ignores the fact that payments made at the counter ofthe DDA need not always be considered as a valid payment. There is nothing toindicate that encashment of this payment by the DDA officials was an authorisedencashment. Further, this payment was in the year 1987 which was much after thedate fixed for payment under the Scheme. ( 17 ) IN these circumstances, it is not possible to direct the DDA to allot a plotto the petitioner. ( 18 ) AT the same time, the conduct of the DDA in not refunding the amount tothe petitioner while rejecting his application for the plot, cannot be appreciated. Inspite of the repeated requests of the petitioner, DDA continued to maintain awooden silence. A public authority owes to itself and to the public that it shouldbe prompt in refunding the amount payable to the citizens by it. DDA has noexplanation for this negligence on its part. It is bound to refund the refundableamount to the petitioner without undue delay. DDA has to compensate thepetitioner for the retention of this sum. ( 19 ) CONSEQUENTLY, while rejecting the petitioner s prayer for the allotment ofa plot, I direct the respondents to refund the petitioner the sum of Rs. 12,500. 00 withinterest therein at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from the date of the letterwhereunder petitioner was told that application for the plot was rejected. Peti-tioner is also entitled to the cost of this writ petition; DDA shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 as costs to the petitioner. ( 20 ) THE writ petition is disposed of accordingly.