* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8394/2009
Decided on: 23.01.2012
IN THE MATTER OF
SUNDRI DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rama Shankar, Adv.
versus
DDA ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent/DDA to withdraw the cancellation of allotment of a kiosk/stall No.254, situated at Chhoti Subzi Mandi, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi vide communication dated 21.05.2007 and restore the said allotment in her favour.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been earning her livelihood by squatting at Nehru Place. However, respondent/DDA offered her an alternate allotment of a stall and accordingly allotted her a stall bearing No.254 at Tilak Nagar, Choti Subzi Mandi, New Delhi. It is submitted that the petitioner was unable to deposit the amounts demanded by the respondent/DDA for the said allotment, within the stipulated time and on account of the said delay, the W.P.(C) 8394/2009 Page 1 of 4 allotment made in her favour was cancelled by the respondent/DDA.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition registered as W.P.(C) No.5003/2007 for quashing the cancellation order dated 21.05.2007 and for restoration of the allotment. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of while directing the petitioner to file a representation for condonation of delay on her part in depositing the amount with the respondent/DDA. On 30.01.2009, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent/DDA explaining the circumstances in which there was a delay on her part in depositing the amount for allotment of the stall. The said representation is stated to be still pending, thus, compelling the petitioner to file the present petition.
4. Counsel for the petitioner states that vide order dated 22.04.2009, notice was issued in the present petition and at the same time respondent/DDA was directed to maintain status quo in respect of the tehbazari site of the petitioner at Nehru Place till the next date of hearing or allot a different site to her. On 22.10.2009, counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the petitioner had received a letter dated 01.09.2009 issued by the DDA (Commercial Estate Branch) stating inter alia that the allotment of the subject stall has been approved, subject to payment of restoration charges and interest on belated payment. It was observed by the Court that the aforesaid letter took substantial care of the grievances of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to visit the office of the DDA (Commercial Estate Branch) on 16.11.2009, W.P.(C) 8394/2009 Page 2 of 4 when she was to be furnished a statement of accounts and intimated about the outstanding dues, if any.
5. It was the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent/DDA failed to comply with the aforesaid order. Yet again on 23.03.2010, an order was passed directing the petitioner to approach the Director, Residential (Lands), DDA on 31.03.2010 for sorting out the accounts. It is stated that the petitioner did not visit the office of the respondent/DDA on the said date, whereafter DDA issued a letter dated 01.07.2010 to the petitioner raising a demand of `45,204/- on her towards interest on balance initial payment and on belated payment of monthly installments along with restoration charges.
6. Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 01.02.2011 whereby the respondent/DDA was directed to file an affidavit giving the complete breakup of the calculations which would show that the payments made by the petitioner had so far been accounted for. Though the affidavit has not been filed till date, counsel for the respondent/DDA states that a calculation sheet has been prepared by the department.
7. Counsel for the respondent/DDA is directed to furnish a copy of the calculation sheet prepared by DDA to counsel for the petitioner within one week. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the calculations made by the respondent/DDA, she shall approach the respondent/DDA within two weeks thereafter with a representation specifically pointing out inter alia W.P.(C) 8394/2009 Page 3 of 4 the discrepancies in the calculation sheet. The said representation shall be considered by the Deputy Director (Commercial Estate), DDA and if the petitioner seeks a personal hearing from the said officer, a date and time shall be fixed by the said officer within two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, under written intimation to her. After granting a hearing to the petitioner, a speaking order shall be passed by the respondent/DDA dealing with the discrepancies as pointed out by the petitioner. Needful shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of conclusion of the submissions.
8. If the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the respondent/DDA, she shall be at liberty to seek her civil remedies in that regard as per law.
9. Till the speaking order as aforesaid is passed, the respondent/DDA shall maintain status quo with regard to the stall allotted to the petitioner.
10. However, if the petitioner is satisfied with the calculation sheet of the respondent/DDA, she shall deposit the outstanding amount in respect of the stall allotted to her, within two weeks and thereafter proceed to complete necessary formalities for taking over the possession of the said stall from the respondent/DDA.
11. The petition is disposed of.
HIMA KOHLI, J JANUARY 23, 2012 'anb' W.P.(C) 8394/2009 Page 4 of 4