Sarla Dhawan vs Delhi Development Authority
1990 Latest Caselaw 104 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) Rule D.B.

(2) In this writ petition the challenge is to the order of the respondent contained in the letter.dated 23rd March,1988 cancelling the allotment of Flat No.100-B, First Floor, in Phase Ii, M&N, Sarita.Vihar, New Delhi.

(3) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner had registered herself for allotment of a Janta category flat with the respondent, the Registration Number being 35510, An allotment letter dated 20th October, 1986 was issued to her intimating her about the allotment of the aforesaid flat on the basis of the draw held on 9th October, 1986. The petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 8741.42 within one month of the issue of the letter. The petitioner alleges that on 18th November, 1986 the said sum was deposited vide the Challan No. 178873 in the State Bank of India, Parliament Street, Nev/Delhi. According to the petitioner she completed all the formalities, and she presented the documents at Windo No. 9inD.D.A.Vikas Sadan New Delhi in December, 1986. She was then advised to enclose the fixed deposit receipt for Rs. 250.00 along with other documents. It is represented that a relative of the petitioner presented the said documents along with the fixed deposit receipt in January , 1987 at the same place. He was then reported to have been informed that certificate of income should be filed. The petitioner's representative informed the person concerned that this certificate had already been filed. It is further stated that the documents were then resubmitted in April, 1987, but they were returned on flimsy grounds. Subsequently, the petitioner posted the documents under registered cover. The petitioner also paid regularly Rs. 350.25 in the State Bank of India being monthly Installments towards the cost of the flat in question. It is stated that these deposits have been made from December, 1986 to February, 1989 photo copies of the challans of deposits so made have been filed in Court.

(4) The petitioner received the impugned letter dated 23rd March 1988 alleging therein that the allotment of the flat was being cancelled as the petitioner had "failed to deposit the demanded amount/furnish the requisite documents, within stipulated period".

(5) Vide her letter dated 22nd April, 1988 the petitioner informed the respondents that the amount demanded had been paid within the stipulated period. The only response which she got was a letter dated 11th October, 1988 asking from the petitioner payment of Rs. 962.50 as cancellation charges. The petitioner once again wrote a registered letter dated 30th November, 1988 informing the respondent of payment of all amounts, but no reply has been received The petitioner then received a letter dated 13th March, 1989 from the respondent along with a cheque for Rs. 8129.17 intimating the petitioner that the amount deposited by her was being returned after deducting cancellation charges of Rs. 962.50. According to the petitioner the aforesaid cheque has not been encashed. It has been specifically averred that the petitioner has not received any reply to the various letters written by her protesting against the action of the respondent and thereafter, the present writ petition was filed.

(6) Show cause notice was issues and time was taken by the respondent on 15th November, 1989 for filing the reply. No reply has been filed till today.

(7) Counsel for the respondent stated that though he has received the instructions from the respondents, and according to the instructions so received, the respondent may not be in a position to deny the factual allegation of the petitioner with regard to the deposit of money within time.

(8) If is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent did not receive the intimation of deposit of the initial amount demanded. This in our opinion, is not relevant and what is important is the deposit of the amount within the stipulated period and not information of the deposit within the stipulated period.

(9) The important tiling in allotment of these flats is that the allottees must pay the money within the requisite period. The receipt of money having been admitted and the payment having been made within the stipulated period, we see no reason to disbelieve the statement of the petitioner. It does not stand to reason that the petitioner would pay the money whenever asked to do so, but would refrain from submission of documents. It is not in the interest of the petitioner not to complete the formalities. It is a matter of serious concern that public officers instead of helping the public try to create difficulties. The public bodies are meant to assist and look after the interests of the general public and we do hope that this spirit will be inculcated in the employees of the respondent sometime.

(10) In our opinion, the cancellation of the flat in favor of the petitioner was without any reasonable basis and was also in violation of the principles of natural justice because no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner informing her that her allotment will be cancelled.

(11) For the aforesaid reasons, the decision of the respondent contained in the letter dated 23rd March, 1988 whereby allotment of the petitioner's flat was cancelled is quashed. A Writ of Mandamus is issued to the respondent asking it to hand over physical possession of the aforesaid flat to the petitioner within six weeks from today. If any formalities are required to be completed by the petitioner, the respondent shall inform the petitioner of her counsel in writing within three weeks from today and the petitioner shall complete all those formalities within two weeks thereafter.

(12) There will be no orders as to costs.