Shradhanjali Devi & Others vs Union Of India & Another
1998 Latest Caselaw 54 Del

ORDER

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

1. By this writ petition u/A 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the quashing of the demand letters dated 21-9-95, 25-9-95 and 15-2-1996 issued by the respondent No. 3.

2. Facts relevant and requisite for the purpose of deciding the dispute lie in a narrow compass. In the year 1983, the Slum Department under the Slum Clearance Scheme constructed 32 shops for allotment to the Slum dwellers including the petitioners. In the year 1988, Shri Banarsi Dass, and others filed the W.P. No. 2830/1988 in this Court and obtained a stay order against allotment of these shops. According to the petitioners, the said stay order has since been vacated on disposal of the writ petition by this Court and the Slum Department, in the month of March and in June, 1989, allotted 18 out of 32 shops to eligible persons at a disposal cost of Rs. 20,000/- each. On 21-9-95, 25-9-95 and on 15-12-96, the respondent No. 3 issued demand letters to the petitioners requiring them to pay Rs. 62,100/- towards disposal cost of each shop in 12 quarterly equated instalments of Rs. 8476/-. The petitioners have challenged the enhancement and recovery of the disposal cost of the shops in question as arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to allotment of these shops at the rates prevailing in the year 1989.

3. The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have contested the matter and asserted that this court can't interfere under Act 226 of the Constitution in the matter of pricing/costing of the shops in question. The respondents described the enhancement of disposal cost of the shop as fair and just.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the year 1989, 18 out of 32 shops constructed by the respondent No. 3 were allotted to eligible persons at a disposal cost of Rs. 20,000/- each and in the year 1995-96, prices of the remaining shops were enhanced to Rs. 62,100/- each, which is arbitrary and illegal.

5. In Indore Development Authority Vs. Smt. Sadhana Agarwal (1995) 3 J.T. S.C. 1, the Supreme court had an occasion to consider the question of costing/pricing of the flats constructed by the Indore Development Authority and it was held that this Court has a power to go into the fairness of the prices if the same are arbitrary. In DDA Vs. Pushpendra Kumar , similar question came up for consideration before the Apex court and their Lordships have laid down the.following principles:-

(i) an allottee does not obtain a vested right of allotment on a draw of lots. The system of drawing of lots is only a mode, a method, a process to identify the allottee i.e. it is a process of selection. It is not allotment by itself. More identification or selection of allottee does not clothe the Person selected with the legal right to allotment at the price prevailing on the date of drawal of lots;

(ii) since the right to flat arises only on the communication of the letter of allotment, the price or rate prevailing on the date of communication is applicable unless otherwise provided in the scheme;

(iii) the scheme does not prescribe the Period within which allotment has to be communicated from the date of drawl of lots. It has of course to be done within a reasonable period.

6. It is significant to mention that the Petitioners have not placed on record the letters of allotment of the shops in question. They have simply filed copies of the letters of demand issued by the respondent No. 3. There is nothing on record to record a finding that enhancement of prices of the said shops is unfair and unjust. There is no material on the record, nor has any material been brought to my notice to hold that the delay in allotting the shops in question to the petitioners was on account of inefficiency of the respondents No. 2 & 3. On the contrary, Shri P.L. Nagpal, Dy. Director (Allotment) Slum and J.J. Department has stated in his counter affidavit that costing of these shops has been worked out on "no profit, no loss basis." There is nothing on record to disbelieve the affidavit of Shri P.L. Nagpal. Moreover, it cannot be held that the respondent No. 3 is obliged to sell these shops at a price that may result in loss to it. In my opinion, the issue raised by the petitioners stands fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in DDA Vs. Pushpendra Kumar Jain (supra) and the petitioners are bound to pay costs of these shops at the price or rate prevailing on the date of communication of the letters of allotment. If in case the petitioners are not willing to take or accept the allotment at such rate, it is always open to them to decline the allotment.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners shall pay costs of the respondents No. 2 & 3 and bear their own. Counsel's fee is quantified at Re. 5000/-.