KISHNIDEVI vs ADD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FACTORIES), M.C.D.

THIS is an appeal against the order No. D-14/2989 dated 14.2.89 passed by the District Forum whereby the Forum dismissed the complaint of the applicant seeking refund of a sum of Rs. 3,981/- deposited by the appellant for procuring Municipal Trade Licence.

THE appellant was granted ad hoc Municipal Trade Licence No. 999 in 1969 for running Electroplating work with 7.5 HP Electric Machine in village Pipal Thala. It transpires from the record that the appellant did not get the said licence renewed subsequently. However, the appellant was allotted the new premises at factory No. 8-8/4, Badli Industrial Area Phase No.I as an alternative site in Industrial area from the non-confirming area of old premises at village Pipal Thala. For renewing the old Licence from 1.4.69 to 31.3.88 the Municipal Corporation of Delhi charged Rs. 3,981/- to enable it to issue new licence for the new alternative site to entitle the appellant to run her factory. The appellant deposited the said amount of Rs. 3,981/- for procurring the new licence on the basis of the old licence. The new Licence was issued as continuation of the old licence and to keep the old licence alive arrears of licence fee with penalty had to be paid. Having obtained the new licence on payment of arrears of licence fee with penalty the appellant cannot contend that the said amount of Rs. 3,981/- had been illegally obtained from her.

The respondent in para 3 of their amended reply on merits to the corresponding para 3 of the grounds of appeal have categorically contended that the old licence for village Pipal Thala had relevance with the new premises at factory No. 8-8/4, Badli Industrial Area. The appellant except for making a bare denial simpliciter has not placed any material on the record to contend to the contrary.

THE bare assertion of the appellant that it was a new licence cannot destroy the fact that the old licence at village Pipal Thala had relevance with the new premises at factory No. 8-8/4 Badli Industrial Area. THE appellant therefore was rightly asked and deposited the sum of Rs. 3,981/- as arrears of licence fee with penalty to keep the licence alive to entitle her to the allotment of the new premises. The submission that the electric meter installed at the premises in village Pipal Thala was removed by DESU on 30.9.82 is not determinative of question under consideration. Apart from the fact that removal of the meter does not tantamount to cancelling of the Trade licence, one can not ignore the fact that the new licence was issued in continuation of the old licence and for renewing the same the sum of Rs. 3,981/- was charged as fee and penalty to cover the period from 1970 to 1988 during which period the appellant did not pay the requisite licence fee.

THE view taken by the District Forum is correct and we do not find any cogent reasons to differ from it. For the reasons stated above we find no infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference. THE appeal is accordingly rejected. Appeal rejected.