Mr. Sumukh Sharma vs D.D.A. And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 728 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that he was an applicant in a Scheme floated by Delhi Development Authority as 'Festival Housing Scheme, 2004'. The petitioner applied in the said Scheme on 23.12.2004 vide application form stated to be bearing No. 155002 and further deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as Registration money. It is further contended by the petitioner that a letter dated 25.1.2005 was received by the petitioner from respondent No. 1 informing him that since the application number on the form submitted by the petitioner was not fully visible and computer was not accepting the said number, in order to avoid any complications the petitioner was being given a new computerized application number, being application No. 755002.

2. The petitioner further contends that a draw of lots with respect to allotment of flats in the said Scheme was held on 28.1.2005, the results of which were published in the newspaper 'Navbharat Times' on 29.1.2005 in which the list of successful applicants (through their application numbers) was reflected. It has been contended by the petitioner that the number of the petitioner's application i.e. 155002 appeared in the said list. However, it is contended that on the website of the DDA where the said results were also published, the name of one Shri Amit Khanna was mentioned against the said application No. 155002 and the flat which was stated to be allotted in the draw of lots, bearing No. 138-A, Sector -18, Category-II, Rohini, Delhi was also shown to be allotted to respondent No. 4 (Amit Khanna) against the said application No. 155002. The petitioner contended that there was tampering with the results of the draw of lots resulting in depriving of the said allotted flat to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner alleges collusion of the respondents' officials in making allotment to another person and having given undue advantage to another person in wrongly changing the application number of the petitioner from 155002 to 755002. The petitioner further contends in the writ petition that the procedure for allotment under the said Scheme is as per the 'application numbers' which are submitted by the applicants, which is stated to be evident from the newspapers which reflect the application numbers. The petitioner consequently prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue demand-cum-allotment letter to the petitioner against application number 155002 claiming to be a successful candidate under the said Scheme.

4. In response to the said writ petition, Respondent-DDA filed its counter affidavit and the records pertaining to the matter were also produced in the court during the course of hearing. It is contended by the respondent that as per the practice and procedure prevalent in the DDA for the last several years for holding draw of lots, the requisite application obtained Along with the brochure by an applicant, is submitted after filing the requisite particulars (including preferences of the choice of flats) along with the application fee with one of the designated banks indicated in the brochure.

5. It is contended by the respondent that in the Scheme in question, considering the numbers of the flats which were offered in the scheme, the respondent had initially printed 20,000 forms along with the brochure. However, the said 20,000 forms were sold out just in 2 days, which resulted in the DDA printing additional 150000 forms during the period of the said Scheme. It is stated that as a result of the hurried printing of the additional forms, some of them did not contain clear application numbers and duplicity also resulted in the printing of the application numbers.

6. It is further contended by the Respondent that the 'application number' of the application form submitted by the petitioner was not legible/visible and the records further showed that the application form number of respondent No. 4 Shri Amit Khanna also reflected the same application number and rather apparently seems to have the same application number i.e. 155002 and since the computer would not have taken two similar application numbers, it was decided by the respondent-DDA to allot a different 'computerized application number' to the petitioner, bearing No. 755002 and the same was duly intimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.1.2005 well in advance before the holding of the draw of lots, which fact is also not disputed by the petitioner herein.

7. Records of the respondent-DDA, however, in any event showed that this has ultimately resulted in no prejudice to the petitioner. As per the practice and procedure stated to be adopted for conducting a draw of lots, it is contended that the draw of lots and allotments thereof are never made through the 'application numbers'. The procedure which is stated to be followed for the said draw of lots is that each of the applicant who submit the application in a scheme, is allotted a 'Random Number', which is not in seriatum to the 'application numbers', but is totally different from the same. It is stated that an application number say, 1500 (which is higher in seriatum) may be allotted random number 45000 while the application number 750 may be allotted a random number 47000. This Random Number is stated to be allotted by the computer in which application numbers are fed. After the allotment of said Random Numbers to each of the applicants, the records maintained by respondent/DDA is stated to reflect all the details of a particular applicant, including the application number, random number, name, father's name, preferences etc.

8. The Random Numbers so assigned to each applicant are then stated to be arranged in seriatum, in ascending order, starting from the serial number 1 till the last total number of applicants. Thus, each Random Number is assigned a 'Random Serial Number' in accordance with its configuration assigned while juggling the application numbers for the assignment of a 'Random Number'. This process is stated to be adopted to avoid any mischief and foul play and to eradicate chances of collusion or fraud during the holding of draw of lots, whereby the application numbers are known to several persons and officials.

9. The process does not end here. After the Random Serial Numbers are assigned, the next step is stated to be picking up of a 'Lucky Random Serial Number'. This Lucky Random Serial Number is stated to be picked, one from each of the six boxes (in the present case) containing certain tokens/coins bearing numbers from 0 to 9, depending upon the total number of applicants placed in the draw. One number is stated to be picked from one of the boxes by Independent Judges, who are stated to be Senior Government Officers. The number picked from each of the boxes is joined together to form, what is known as a' Lucky Random Serial Number'. This Lucky Random Serial Number is stated to form the basis of the allotment to be made to the applicants. The first allotted is stated to be the one having the said 'Lucky Random Serial Number' and thereafter each 'Random Serial Number' placed after the said Lucky Serial Number is picked up and depending upon the preferences given by the said applicant, allotments are continued to be made in ascending order from the said Random Serial Numbers.

10. In the present case, the Random Number assigned to the petitioner against his assigned application No. 755002 was 187678, whereas the Random Number assigned to Sheri Amit Khanna against his assigned application No. 155002 was 522922. While arranging the said Random Numbers in seriatum, the Random Serial Number allotted to the petitioner was 58799 while the Random Serial Number allotted to Amit Khanna was 163706. The Lucky Random Serial Number which was picked up in the draw of lots was 161834. Thus the petitioner whose random serial number was prior to the lucky random serial number picked in the draw was automatically excluded, since the successful applicants were considered in ascending order after the lucky random serial number. Consequently, Shri Amit Khanna (respondent No. 4) was successful and was picked up in the ascending order according to the availability of flats and on account of his random serial number assigned to him.

11. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that although the newspapers carrying the results of the draw, indicated only the application numbers of the successful allottees, on account of paucity of space, the results on the internet as well as those displayed in the office of respondents' authority reflected both the application number as well as the Random Numbers as well as the name of the successful applicants.

12. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that although there has been an error, and although the methodology adopted by the respondent-DDA for holding the draw of lots is too complex, what is required to be seen is the intention behind the said process and the actual procedure followed for conducting the draw of lots as also whether allotment is vitiated. The Respondent has adopted a methodology to eradicate any mischief or foul play in making allotments, which despite being complex, apparently seems to be for a justified cause. The said process undoubtedly indicates a fair approach sought to be adopted by the respondent in holding the draw, although the said process, to my mind, should be made simpler. However, the fact remains that from the averments contained in the duly sworn affidavit and the records of the respondent, despite error having been committed, the method adopted leaves no doubt that the draw of lots is conducted not through the application numbers, but through a differently assigned Random Numbers. There is no collusion, as is sought to be alleged by the petitioner in the draw conducted by the respondent and in my opinion no fault can be found in the said draw.

13. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was intimated about the change in his application number from 155002 to 755002 (although the same did not in any event make difference) and the same also shows that there was no mala fide on the part of the respondent-DDA in any manner whatsoever. No doubt the results declared in the newspaper gave some kind of a false hope to the petitioner of having been successful in obtaining a flat, but the mistake even to the extent of wrong application number being mentioned, had already been rectified by the DDA by intimating the petitioner vide a letter having been earlier issued in this regard. In any event the allotment having been made not on the basis of the application number and on the basis of separately allotted random numbers, the affidavit filed by the respondent and the records produced clearly show that the petitioner had not been successful in the draw of lots and as such is not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition.

14. In view of the reasons stated above, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no costs.