JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. By an order dated 23rd May 1996 in LPA No. 125/96 a Division Bench of this Court referred the matter to a Larger Bench, stating therein as under:
We are finding repeatedly cases coming to this court wherein allottees of plots or flats from DDA are not conforming to the dates fixed in the orders of allotment for payment of consideration. Parties are coming after the expiry of the due dates and in some cases, after a delay of years. They say that they are prepared to pay the amount now with interest. The point here is that the grant of indulgence in such cases is seriously interfering with the various schemes of allotment brought in by the DDA in various localities under various schemes. It has, therefore, become necessary to give an authoritative pronouncement as to whether it is permissible to give indulgence to those who have not conformed to the schedule relating the payments. The matter will be placed before the Full Bench of three Judges.
On this limited issue, issue notice to counsel for the DDA.
Registry is directed to prepare necessary sets of paper-books. The matter be listed on 26th July, 1996 before the Full Bench."
2. The scope of the reference was enlarged by an order dated 15th May 1998. The question of delay in making payment by the allottee to the DDA on grounds of non-availability of basic amenities like sewerage, water and electricity was also directed to be considered.
3. Having regard to the order proposed to be passed by us, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix of the matter. Suffice it to say that Delhi Development Authority (in short "DDA") framed various schemes, in terms whereof, applicants are called upon to apply for inclusion of their names in a draw of lots to be held and the successful allottees are allotted a flat at a specific price. Question, however, arose as to whether the DDA can enforce the demand (under plain of cancellation) upon merely constructing the flat and offering its possession, without making flat habitable, as for example laying down water supply lines, sewerage lines, construction of roads, etc.
4. The appellant in S.S. Oberoi v. Delhi Development Authority (L.P.A. No. 125/96) filed writ petition (CWP No. 187/96) claiming inter alia the following reliefs:
"(a) A writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the cases.
(b) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to defer the demand towards the cost of the demised flat (made vide Annexure P-2) till the time of the availability of all the basic amenities/facilities like sewerage, water and electricity.
(c) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent to charge the petitioner towards the demand/cost of the demised flat only from the time when the flat became fit for habitation and all the essential amenities/facilities like sewerage, water and electricity became available.
(d) A writ of mandamus or any other writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to pay the costs of this petition to the petitioner.
(e) Any other writ, order or direction which may be deemed fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
5. The said writ petition was dismissed stating as follows:
"The petitioner got himself registered for allotment of a flat of MIG category under registration scheme of new pattern, 1979 and made an initial deposit of Rs. 4,500/-. In 1993 the flat in question was allotted to the petitioner on cash down basis at the cost of Rs. 4,29,400/- vide allotment-cum-demand letter (Annexure P2). Several writ petitions were filed challenging the costing pattern adopted by the DDA. Ultimately all these petitions were dismissed consequent to the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Sheelawanti v. Union of India . Instead of making the payment as demanded by the DDA the present petition has been filed submitting that basic amenities/ facilities such as water, sewerage and electricity are not yet available in the flat in question. There is nothing on the record to show policy/decision of the DDA or the terms of the allotment, or any other provision in the Act or the rules made there under which would permit the petitioner with holding the payment of price of the flat in question till the time of delivery of possession over the flat by the respondent DDA. It has been held in V.S. Duggal v. DDA (CWP No. 4597/95) decided on 12.12.1995 that if an allottee fails to make the payment, the DDA is not obliged to issue possession letter and deliver possession.
Since the petitioner has not paid the price of the flat as demanded by the DDA, the petitioner is not entitled, as of a right, to restore the cancellation of the allotment.
In this view of the matter I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. dismissed in liming."
6. Civil Writ Petition No. 534 of 2001 arises out of a judgment/order dated 3rd February 2000 passed by Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, which inter alia held that the DDA, having regard to the fact that it had demanded full and final settlement has a corresponding obligation to give possession of the flats within reasonable time frame. As the basic amenities had not been provided, the DDA was directed to compensate the applicant by paying interest @ 16% for the entire period of delay in handing over the possession of flat and the period the applicant remained without water and electricity connection even after its possession had been delivered to the applicant.
7. The Court having regard to the importance of the question appointed Mr. Pradeep Nandrajog as amices Curiae. However, we may note that the appellant had not been appearing before this court. This Court by an order dated 9th February 2001 considered it appropriate that the heads of the respective departments should hold a joint meeting in presence of their respective counsels. Pursuant to the directions given, as affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner (Housing) DDA setting out the various steps taken for better coordination between the DDA, Delhi Vidyut Board as well as the Delhi Jal Board so that basic amenities are provided.
8. A system of monthly/quarterly meetings at the level of concerned Executing Engineer and Chief Engineers, followed by periodic review by the Engineer Member of DDA, Technical Member of Delhi Vidyut Board and Engineer-in-chief of Delhi Jal Board has been devised. Besides, it has been decided that Delhi Vidyut Board as well as the Delhi Jal Board are involved at the stage of conceptual planning by the DDA so that the requirements of power and water are properly assessed and determined, and provided along with as construction progresses.
9. As regards a decision to be taken in respect of outstanding payments for housing pockets and areas where basic amenIT is had not been made available although the construction was complete, the DDA has taken decisions as reflected in their order of 11.1.2002. These read as under:
"The following decisions have been taken in the cases where the basic amenities are not available:-
1. In hire purchase cases the monthly Installments are deferred till the basic amenities are available.
2. As regards cash down allotment we defer the 50% of the demanded amount till the basic amenities are available. No interest is being charged on 50% of the demanded amount till the basic amenities become available at site."
10. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the afore-mentioned decisions of the DDA are fair and equitable. In view of the stand taken by the parties, we are of the opinion that this matter should be disposed of, in the light of the said officer order dated 11th January 2002 having regard to the stand taken by the DDA.
11. Regarding the reference made vide order dated 23.5.1996, namely, whether it was permissible to give indulgence in cases of default simplicitor i.e. to those who have not complied with the payment schedule dehors the question of provision of basic amenities. We find that DDA itself has a policy wherein delay up to specified periods can be condoned by officers at different levels including the Vice Chairman upon payment of interest.
12. We would not like to pay down any strait jacket formula in this regard so as to circumscribe or limit the discretion, which is to be exercised by the Court in appropriate cases in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of India. The Writ petition is, thus, disposed of.