Municipal licence as an eligibility for industrial plot allotment was upheld, with most claims rejected but three sustained.

A valid municipal licence under section 416 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 was treated as a legitimate eligibility condition for allotment of industrial plots under the DDA's disposal policy and Rule 6(v) of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981. The allotment scheme was confined to industrial units shifting from non-conforming to conforming areas, and an applicant operating in continuing contravention of law could be distinguished from a law-abiding claimant. The absence of an express exclusion in the notice or form did not make the condition arbitrary. On the individual records, most claims failed, though three cases retained sufficient material to support entitlement.

---

---

Issues: Whether a valid municipal licence under section 416 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 was a mandatory condition for allotment of industrial plots under the DDA policy and Rule 6(v) of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981, and whether the respondents without such licence were entitled to alternative plots.

Analysis: The allotment scheme was confined to industrial units required to shift from non-conforming areas to conforming areas under the Master Plan, and the statutory rule was applied in conjunction with the DDA's eligibility policy. The Court accepted the DDA's stance that a person operating without a valid municipal licence under section 416 was in continuing contravention of law and could be distinguished from a law-abiding applicant; the condition was not treated as arbitrary merely because the public notice or form did not expressly exclude the licensing requirement. The Court also examined the later ad hoc licensing arrangement and the individual records of the rejected applicants. On that scrutiny, most cases were found not to satisfy the entitlement claimed, but three cases disclosed sufficient material to uphold the High Court's view in their favour.

Conclusion: The licensing requirement was upheld as a valid eligibility condition, and the writ petitions of most respondents were dismissed. However, the appeals failed in the cases where the individual record supported entitlement, so the result was mixed.

---