SURINDER DHAR vs CHAIRPERSON DELHI STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEV. CORP. LTD.

BRIEFLY the facts are mat the complainant Sh. Surinder Dhar was selected in February 1974 as an entrepreneur by the Delhi State Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIDC) under the National Scheme of "Half-a-Million-Job-Programme" (HAMJP) of the Government of India for self-employment for the educated unemployed. He qualified for "PRIORITY" consideration being without parental support and coming from the State of J & K. He had proposed to enter into readymade garments production which is labour intensive.

HIS grievance is that inspite of the fact that he had qualified for priority allotment of a shed under the HAMJP scheme DSIDC continuously promised to allot a shed and did not give him one till today. He had qualified amongst the entrepreneurs in 7th batch who got sheds without the security or with small security. Further he has contended that the conditions of allotment of sheds have been changed from time to time which made it impossible for him to secure a shed as he could not offer to pay the security demanded by DSIDC which varied from Rs. 2,000/- to 5,000/- or to make down payment for the shed. He has further stated that the entrepreneurs selected in batches after him had been allotted sheds. He has prayed that he should be provided a shed by the DSIDC for his long overdue claim for a shed under the terms and conditions under which the 7th batch entrepreneurs were provided sheds. In case a shed is not available in Okhla Phase-I where he had been operating he be allotted equivalent land area in that locality as the land is still available there. The complaint has been contested by the respondents who have stated in their reply that they could not consider the allotment of a shed to the complainant as he failed to arrange for die machinery. The project report prepared by the complainant had been turned down twice by the financial institutions i.e. by the Bank of India and Bank of Baroda. The complainant had been advised by the respondent DSIDC to change his project to a more viable one. The complainant had started his unit in the shed allotted to another entrepreneur M/s. Rohini Sidpra, Shed No. 185 at Okhla Phase- I. The complainant was given financial assistance of Rs. 7,000/- to enable him to execute the order of leather footwear. He has not so far returned the loan amount. As the complainant could not arrange machinery with which to start his unit and also could not get financial help from the financial institutions to start his unit in the shed allotted to M/s. Rohini Sidpra for which he was given financial help of Rs. 7,000/- he was advised to change his project to a viable one but he did not do so. The complainant could not be sanctioned margin money scheme for entrepreneurs. His-project report has been rejected twice by two banks and he could not raise funds for functioning his unit as such a shed could not be allotted to him under the terms and conditions of the scheme.

The complainant, has stated in his affidavit dated 14.8.91, that he was selected as an entrepreneur by the DSIDC and he qualified for die allotment of an industrial shed under the scheme of half-a-million-job programme of Government of India for the educated unemployed. He has attached a certificate of DSIDC dated 12.8.77 to his affidavit as PW/1/1. This certificate is signed by Sh. V.S. Pandey, Chief Marketing Manager, DSIDC. The last para of the certificate reads as ''He is eligible for allotment of a shed by DSIDC if the Bank provides the financial assistance''. He has further stated in his affidavit that he had proposed to enter into readymade garments production and he reiterated the facts given in his complaint.

SH. K.P. Singh, Dy. Manager (Legal) DSIDC in his counter affidavit dated 3.9.91 has stated that the complainant was eligible for allotment of a shed subject to the condition that the bank provides the financial assistance which in fact was not provided by the bank. The complainant further failed to arrange the machinery to start his unit His application to financial institutions were turned down twice by Bank of Baroda. The respondent gave financial help of Rs. 7,000/- to the complainant to enable him to execute the order of learner footwear in shed no. 185 allotted to M/s Rohini Sidpra. This loan of Rs. 7,000/- has not been paid back yet by the complainant. We have heard the arguments and perused the record. The document ''Study of Special Employment Programme for the Educated Unemployed'' in the DSIDC leaflet gives details regarding selection of the entrepreneurs and terms and conditions. It is stated on page 3 para 2 that the "entrepreneurs are required to furnish detailed project reports to the Corporation which are subjected to technical scrutiny with regard to the availability of raw materials, machinery, technical know how required for the project and the space available for setting-up of the project. Once the projects are vetted by the expert Divisions DSIDC these are forwarded to institutional financing agencies for sanctioning financial assistance.

A perusal of record and departmental file No. 656 pertaining to the case amply substantiates that the onus of not getting the shed lies squarely on Shri Surinder Dhar, the complainant He was selected in the 4th batch more than eighteen years ago in March, 1974. He failed to meet the conditions to qualify for allotment of an Industrial Shed by the respondent DSIDC. The first condition after completion of training for the selected entrepreneurs was to have a technically feasible and economically viable project on the basis of which the banks or financial institutions would provide financial assistance for procurement of machinery etc. Thus the complainant has failed to obtain till today. It is evident from the records that his project was turned down twice. First by Bank of India, regional office who commented as under on 18 November 1974 in their letter to the Chief Project Manager, DSIDC. "We had detailed discussions with the entrepreneur and we write to inform you that the Captioned Scheme does not appear to be viable in the hands of Mr. Dhar". Bank of Baroda turned down his request for financial assistance on 21.2.75. The project manager, Shri C. Prasad informed the complainant that his case had not been cleared by any Bank/Financial Institution, and as he had not procured machinery to prosecute his project, it was not possible to consider his case for allotment of a shed. We also note that the respondent had gone out of its way to assist the complainant by sanctioning him a Short Term Loan on 11.9.75 to execute an order for fabrication of 1500 dust covers from M/s. Eskay Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi. He was paid Rs. 7,000/- vide cheque No. 0441 10 dated 15th September 1975 drawn on Central Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Though seventeen years have elapsed since the Short Term Loan was advanced by the respondent, to help the complainant, the amount remains unpaid till today.

IN view of facts stated above and the discussion following them it is abundantly clear that the complainant has failed to meet conditions laid down for allotment of shed. Till today he does not have a project which should have been economically viable and technically feasible and as such he has not been able to get financial assistance from banks/financial institutions. The complaint has no merit, it is rejected with no orders as to cost Complaint rejected.