JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 22nd November, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.6874 of 2001. By the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed.
2. The Appellant was registered under the New Pattern Registration Scheme for allotment of flats constructed by the Delhi Development Authority. The scheme was announced in 1979 and the Appellant paid the necessary registration charges in respect of the scheme.
3. Some time on 20th September, 1991, the Appellant was allotted a flat and a demand-cum-allotment letter was issued but the Appellant came to know that not only was the flat of a lower category but that it had already been allotted to some other person. Under these circumstances, the Appellant was not given possession of the flat.
4. A little later, in June, 1992, the Appellant was allotted another flat of the correct category but in a different zone and at a higher price. The Appellant declined to take possession of this flat on the ground that the price was too high and that it was in a different zone altogether. In view of this, since no payment was received by the Respondent in respect of the flat allotted in June, 1992, the allotment was cancelled on 31st December, 1992.
5. On 31st August, 1995, the Appellant applied for refund of the registration charges deposited under the scheme. This request was accepted and the registration charges were refunded to the Appellant.
6. Much later, on 18th March, 1995, the Appellant protested against the erroneous allotment made in 1991 but receiving no satisfactory response from the Respondent, she filed a writ petition in this Court on 3rd August, 1999. In the writ petition, the prayer made by the Appellant was for the allotment of a flat in the correct category and for damages against the Respondent.
7. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge noted the above facts as also the fact that the writ petition was filed after an undue delay and laches, and on this ground declined to interfere in the matter.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the writ petition of the Appellant ought to have been dismissed.
9. While it may be that the Respondent had made some error in allotting a flat to the Appellant in a lower category in 1991 but the mistake was rectified in 1992. At that point of time, if the Appellant was aggrieved by the higher cost and a different zone in which the flat was situated, she could have approached this Court for relief. Instead of doing that, the Appellant allowed the allotment to get cancelled due to non-payment of the amount demanded by the Respondent and to make things worse, she even applied for a refund of the registration charges that she had deposited under the New Pattern Scheme. Under these circumstances, the Appellant had cut off all connection not only with the scheme but also closed all doors with respect to allotment of a flat. Quite clearly, the Appellant could not have been granted any appropriate relief under these circumstances.
10. Notwithstanding the above, it may also be mentioned that the Appellant had approached this Court only in 1999 after a considerable delay, for which there is absolutely no explanation on record. The Appellant says that she made some representations to the Respondent but that is no justification for her to have waited for so many years before approaching this Court for relief.
11. On both the above counts, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
12. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.