Shri Phool Chand Sardana vs Delhi Development Authority And ...
1991 Latest Caselaw 222 Del

ORDER

1. In this writ petition the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 12th December 1985 (annexure H to the writ petition) vide which respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority has decided to withdraw the offer made to the petitioner in the letter dated 26th November, 1985 (annexure G to the writ petition) according to which letter shop No. 31, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi was allotted to the petitioner in lieu of shop No. 16, Madipur Janta Scheme, and also a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to deliver the possession of shop No. 3 1, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi to the petitioner in accordance with the aforementioned letter of 26th November, 1985.

2. The brief relevant facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner's shop bearing municipal No. A-1 1/ 127, Moti Nagar, New Delhi where he was carrying on business and earning his livelihood was demolished in 1976 by respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority and at the time of demolition of the shop the petitioner was assured by the respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority that he would be allotted alternative shop in lieu of the demolished shop of Moti Nagar in order to earn his livelihood and carry on his business as usual. Subsequently he was allotted shop No. 16, Madipur Janta Scheme vide letter dated 26th October, 1979 (annexure A to the writ petition) and he was asked to comply with certain terms and conditions which were duly complied with by the petitioner. In spite of various representations made to the respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority the petitioner was not given the possession of the shop No. 16, Madipur Janta Scheme and in fact he was made to run from pillar to post for years together and ultimately the petitioner was asked to reach at the site to take possession of shop No. 16, Madipur Janta Scheme allotted to him but to his surprise no such shop existed at the site. In these circumstances, the petitioner had to apply for an alternative shop and again on persistent efforts and representations to the respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority the petitioner was allotted shop No. 31, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi which was lying vacant vide annexure G to the writ petition. Relevant portion of this letter is reproduced below:

"In view of the circumstances explained by you, it has been decided to allot you shop No. 3 1, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, in lieu of shop No. 16 at Madipur Janta Scheme, The exact price and detailed terms and conditions would be communicated to you separately. "

3. In spite of this letter, however, no possession was given to the petitioner nor any terms and conditions were communicated. While he was waiting for the terms and conditions, price and the delivery 'of possession, the petitioner received another letter dated 12th December 1985 (annexure H to the writ petition) whereby the respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority decided to withdraw the offer made to the petitioner in the letter of 26thNovember, 1985, aforementioned, and he was asked to give a fresh consent for change in West/ North Delhi. The allotment made to the petitioner vides annexure G was withdrawn apparently unilaterally by the respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority. - Being aggrieved against this letter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and has challenged this letter of 12th December, 1985 on the ground that the allotment once made with respect of shop No. 31, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi vide letter 26th November, 1985 cannot arbitrarily and unilaterally be withdrawn by respondent No. 1 Delhi Development Authority as the respondent No. I being the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India am expected to act fairly and justly.

4. The stand taken by the respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority in the reply, in substance, is that the case of the petitioner was examined and although he was not eligible for allotment of alternative shop and the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled in respect of shop No. 16, Madipur Janta Scheme, however, on representation made on behalf of the petitioner, his case was considered sympathetically and he was asked to submit demolition slip and other relevant documents to establish his claim. The petitioner vides letter-dated 13-9-1985 filed some additional documents, which could establish his claim for alternative shop. Accordingly the allotment of the shop was restored and the petitioner was issued letter for taking over the possession of shop No. 16, Madipur Janta Scheme on 30-9-1985 at 11.00 a.m. But it was found later on that the shop No. 16; Madipur Janta Scheme was not in existence. Thereafter, the petitioner was allotted shop No. 3 1, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, and Delhi in lieu of shop No. 16, Madipur Janta Scheme. Again, however, the allotment of the aforesaid shop of shop No. 31, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi was reviewed by the respondent No. It and I Delhi Development Authority was decided to withdraw the allotment already made to the petitioner vide letter dated 26th November 1985, and he was asked to give fresh consent for the West/ North Delhi.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the petitioner although has been allotted shop No. 31, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi in lieu of shop No. 16, Madipur Janta Scheme vide letter dated 26-11-1985, the respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority have arbitrarily withheld the possession of that shop although they are bound to deliver such possession. He submits that the petitioner is prepared to comply with all the terms and conditions in case submitted to him as contained in the letter of allotment, which unfortunately have not been communicated to the petitioner so far.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority submit that the possession of the shop cannot be handed over to the petitioner on the ground that the allotment so made has been cancelled by respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority and the petitioner has been asked to give fresh consent for West/ North Delhi and unfortunately the petitioner is not giving any option as requested vide letter dated 12-12-1985.

7. I have given careful consideration to the rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties and after hearing them at great length, I am of the opinion that there is a good deal of force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. It is clear from the affidavit itself filed on behalf of the respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority that the shop No. 16, Madipur Janta Scheme was allotted to the petitioner after he was found eligible for the alternative shop but since it was not in existence on the site, a new allotment was made of shop No. 31, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi. Once this allotment has been made and the same has been accepted by the petitioner, such allotment could not have been reviewed by the respondent No. 1 Delhi Development Authority unilaterally and without any rational basis. No material has been placed on record to show as to what has induced the respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority to cancel the allotment of shop No. 3 1, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi already made to the petitioner. In the affidavit also filed on behalf of the respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority there is nothing to show as to why the respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority has changed their mind to cancel the allotment and unilaterally revoked the earlier decision. Official records of respondent No. 1 Delhi Development Authority dealing with the allotment of the alternative shop to the petitioner; I am informed by the learned counsel for the respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority are not traceable and, therefore, it cannot be found out as to why the allotment of shop No. 31, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi made to the petitioner has been reviewed and revoked and why the offer made earlier has been withdrawn. Since no cogent reasons are forthcoming from respondent No. I Delhi Development Authority for withdrawing the offer of the aforementioned shop, namely, shop No.31, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi, there is no option left to the Court except to hold that the decision of the respondents to withdraw the offer of allotment already made in petitioner's favor of shop No. 31, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi vide letter dated 26-11-1985 is arbitrary and clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned letter, annexure H to the writ petition is not legally sustainable and has to be quashed.

9. Ms. Goel further submits that shop No. 31, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi could not have been allotted to the petitioner as there is a stay order passed by the Supreme Court in respect of this shop in SLP 9318/90 whereby the Supreme Court has ordered this shop to be kept vacant provided it is vacant. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed a subsequent order of the Supreme Court in Court today vide which the earlier order, referred to by Ms. Goel, stands vacated. Therefore, there should not be any difficulty in handing over the vacant possession of the shop No. 31, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi to the petitioner.

10. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned letter is quashed and the respondents are directed to hand over vacant possession of shop No. 3 1, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi allotted to the petitioner vide letter dated 26-11-1985, annexure G to the writ petition. The terms and conditions and price as contemplated in the letter, dated 26-11-1985 shall be communicated by the respondents to the petitioner within two weeks from today. The petitioner will comply with them within one week thereafter and the possession of the shop No. 3 1, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi shall be delivered to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

11. The petition is disposed of with costs: counsels fee Rs. 2,000/-.

A copy of the order is given dusty to counsel for the parties.

12. Petition allowed.