R.K. Singh vs D.D.A.
2006 Latest Caselaw 2022 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The writ petitioner here challenges an order of the Delhi Development Authority (hereafter DDA) dated 29-6-2006 conveying its decision not to regulrize the delay in paying amounts demanded.

2. In 1981, The petitioner got himself registered with DDA under the Rohini Residential Scheme for allotment of an MIG plot under the reserved category of Scheduled Castes. He was, however considered as a general category applicant. He requested for proper classification as a reserved category applicant; this was rejected on 25-9-2000. He filed a Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No.1608/2002, interalia for directions to DDA to allot an MIG plot to him in a developed sector at the price prevalent in 1989. The writ petition was disposed off on 31.7.2002 by this Court on the statement of the Counsel appearing for the DDA that the name of the petitioner would be included in the draw of lots to be held immediately. The said order reads as follows:

CW No.1608/2002

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the non-allotment of plot in Rohini despite eligibility of the petitioner. C.M. No.7608/2002 has been filed by the respondent stating that there are more than adequate plots available for allocation by fair means of a draw of lots. It is further stated that in view of the availability of almost 500 plots it has been decided in terms of the decision taken on 21.2.2002 that the name of the petitioner be included in the draw of lots to be held immediately.

It is further stated that there are similar matters pending in this Court and that the similar applications are being filed in all these matters because by interim order certain specific plot have been reserved. In some cases it is stated that the plots are reserved of a larger size then the entitlement of the petitioner and in any case registrants are entitled not to allotment of any particular plot. In view of the aforesaid statement made in the application, I am of the considered view that the name of the petitioner be included in the next date draw of lots which is stated to be scheduled within about a month for allotment of a plot to the petitioner in his own category and of the size of his entitlement.

4. It is claimed that the issue as to what rate the plot should be allotted to the petitioner was not decided. He therefore, filed an appeal being LPA No.689/2002 before the Division Bench. That appeal was disposed off in the following terms:

LPA No.689/2002 &CM No.1438/2002 The appeal is preferred against the judgment delivered by learned single judge in CWP No.1608/2002 on 31st July, 2002. From the record it transpires that the applicant submitted an application for allotment of plot. His name was not included in the draw of lots for reserved category as certain requirements were not fulfillled such as submission of attested copies of certificate of reserved category etc., From the original record which we have called for it is very clear that no certificate was issued by the competent authority to certify that the petitioner belongs to a reserved category was produced before the appropriate authority. It is in view of this his name was not included in the reserved category but was included in general category. It is only after a period of 18 years the petitioner submitted a representation Along with attest copy of SC certificate. That was attested on 17.3.1992. It may be noted that till 3.8.1998 though he had attested copy of the certificate he did not bother to approach the respondent. It is on the basis of his representation dated 9.11.1998 District Magistrate Muradabad was requested to verify the genuineness and correctness of the said SC certificate District Magistrate, Muradabad by reply dated 17.6.1999 conveyed the information and thereafter the petitioner was informed by letter dated 25th September, 2000 to the effect that his request for change of category from General to SC has been accepted and his name would be considered in the next draw of lots.

The averments made by the DDA in the affidavit in reply are not controverter. In view of this we find no reason to interefere with the impugned order and the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/-

Chief Justice,

Sd/-

A.K. Sikri, J.

5. During the pendency of the said appeal, the DDA held a draw of lots and on 27.12.2002, allotted plot No.58, Pkt-7, Block-B, Sector -IV, Rohini, Delhi measuring 60 Sq. Mtrs, to the petitioner. On 9.2.2003, DDA issued an allotment letter for the plot to the petitioner, in which the total premium of the plot was stated to be Rs. 6,81,450/- which was calculated at the current rate, and after adjustment of registration amount and the interest accrued thereupon, petitioner was called upon to pay a net amount of Rs. 6,68,907/-. The Division Bench had by order dated 04.03.2003 directed the DDA to consider the question of charging the cost of plots as of year 1992. The final order of the Division Bench (quoted supra) was issued on 22.5.2003. The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) being SLP (C) No.10869/2003 in the Supreme Court. On 19.6.2003, the Supreme Court issued notice to DDA and stayed cancellation of allotment made in favor of the petitioner.

6. During the pendency of the SLP the petitioner paid the disputed amount of Rs. 6,69,000/- to the DDA on 7.7.2005 subject to decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed by him and the DDA was so informed. The special leave petition was disposed off as withdrawn, on 25.11.2005.

7. It is claimed that the DDA took no action to hand over possession, and took the position that there was a delay in depositing the amounts demanded, which had to be condoned by the competent authority, i.e its Vice Chairman. On 20.12.2005, the petitioner served a legal notice to the DDA in this regard, calling upon it to inform him within 10 days as to what amount towards interest he was liable to pay, so that he could deposit it and take possession of the plot; it is claimed that documentary formalities already stood completed. 8. 29.6.2006 After a period of more than six months the petitioner received a letter from the DDA informing him that his case was examined in detailed through administrative and legal angle and since it has been established beyond doubt that the payment towards the premium of the plot was deposited by him, (as it was deposited by 13 different bank drafts through 7 persons other than him), the Competent Authority, rejected his request for regularization of period of delay. The said, impugned letter is extracted below:

Sub : Allotment of plot No.58, Pkt. 7, Block B, Sector -4, Rohini Residential Scheme

Sir,

Please refer to your notice dated 21.12.05 sent through your advocate Sh. R.K. Saini regarding issue of possession letter of the above mentioned plot.

In this regard I am directed to inform you that your case has already been examined in detail through administrative and legal angle by the competent Authority. Since it has been established beyond doubt that the payment towards the premium of the plot has not been deposited by you and the same has been deposited by way of 13 different bank drafts through 7 different persons, other than you, the Competent Authority has therefore rejected your request for regularisation of period of delay.

Yours faithfully,

Dy. Director LSB (Rohini)

9. The impugned letter is challenged on the ground that the reason given for refusing to regularize the period of delay and refusing to handover possession of allotted plot to the petitioner subject to payment of interest for the period of delay is totally extraneous and irrelevant. It is urged that the policy of regularization does not provide for any such ground or reason for not regularising the delay. Moreover, in the present case the delay in payment was on account of pending litigation as well as stay of cancellation of allotment granted by the Court; before the litigation came to an end, the petitioner had made the payment of the disputed amount. Therefore, all that he was liable to pay further was the amount of interest for the period of delay in payment and for that purpose the delay was bound to be regularized. In view of all these, the action of the DDA is totally illegal, arbitrary and unjust.

10. It is also alleged that prior to the impugned letter dated 29.06.2006, the petitioner was not issued any notice to show-cause notice alleging that the payment was not made by him on account of the same having been deposited by way of 13 different bank drafts through 7 different persons other than him. He was never called upon to explain the mode, means and reasons of making payment in such a manner and as to why such conduct was objectionable in regard to regularization of the delay in payment, nor that he would be denied possession of the allotted plot. The DDA seems to have conducted an in-house enquiry on its own on the allegations never put to the petitioner, behind his back and reached it own conclusion treating the allegations as proved beyond doubt, without any opportunity to him explain or defend the same. This was in gross and blatant violation of principles of natural justice. It is also alleged that the policy for condensation/ regularization of delay does not contain any such ground nor it confers any such power on the DDA to refuse to regularize the delay on such grounds / reasons. The impugned action of the DDA, therefore, besides being malafide, arbitrary, whimsical, actuated with ulterior motives, is also wholly without jurisdiction.

11. It is alleged that 13 different Bank drafts deposited by seven different people, other than the petitioner towards payment of the plot does not, ipso facto, prove the unfounded suspicion of the DDA that the plot has been sold. It is averred that, just because the Petitioner is a resident of Muradabad and the payments were made after obtaining bank drafts from Banks located in Rohini, Naya Bazar and Connaught Circus, New Delhi, also does not prove any thing. Rather, it proves that the petitioner arranged for huge amounts to be paid towards payment of the plot from different sources including friends and acquitances in Delhi. It is stated that the petitioner's son, Sh. Amit Kumar, is in the business of supply of packaging materials to units in Delhi and he asked his acquintances and business associates in Delhi to contribute small amounts towards amounts payable by the petitioner. As banking rules and practice allow only one draft per person per day against cash and that too to the extent of less than Rs. 50,000/- to be issued, some such contributions were made by them. Besides this, the Petitioner took a private loan of Rs. 1,68,000/- from one Smt. Bina, which was returned by him with interest (totaling Rs. 184,800/-) by cheque on 16.04.2006. Another private loan of Rs. 2,86,000/- was taken from Shri Suresh Kumar, which was also returned with interest (totaling Rs. 3,14,600/-) by cheque on 02.04.2006; copies of those documents were furnished to the DDA, in August, 2006. It is also stated that the petitioner furnished an affidavit to the DDA dated 4.8.20006 to the effect that he has not sold the demised plot to any person till date and that the which was money borrowed by him towards payment of the cost of the said plot, had been repaid by him to the concerned persons.

12. The DDA states that by allotment letter dated 09.02.2003, the Petitioner was allotted a plot No. 58, Block -B, Sector -4 measuring 60 square yards in Rohini Residential Scheme for which the petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs. 6,68,907/-. It was specifically mentioned in the allotment letter that if any installment of the amounts mentioned were not paid by the due date, the allotment would stand cancelled automatically and no request for restoration of allotment would be entertained on any ground whatsoever. However, thereafter, the petitioner dragged himself and the DDA into further litigation regarding the prices to be charged from him. The petitioner made the payment when the Petition was pending disposal before the Supreme Court because by that time, the prices of the properties in Delhi had skyrocketed.

13. The petitioner on 7.7.2005, after an inordinate delay of 844 days arranged and managed to make the payment against the said allotment, by using 13 different bank drafts which were deposited by different 7 persons and not by him. The payments were made on 7.7.2005 whereas the answering respondent was informed only on 3.8.2005 after a month. The DDA, keeping these circumstances in mind, as also on the basis of the judgments in WP (C) No's 18854/05 and 18603/05, by its letter dated 29.6.06 rejected the request of the petitioner for restoration of allotment. It denies the charge that the impugned order is arbitrary; it states that it was issued upon consideration of all relevant factors.

14. It would be relevant, to extract the table of payments made by the petitioner, as follows:

 Challan    Date      Bank      Date    Amount    Name of      draft      Name & address
 No.               Draft No.                    the Bank      drawn      of the persons
                                                                         who applied for
                                                                         pay order/bank
                                                                         draft
313141   1.7.05     281438   29.6.05  45,000/-  Canara      Connaught    Sh. Suresh Kumar,
                                                  Bank         Place     12/8,Sector-16,
                                                                         Rohini

P-237/Cr  -do-     281440    30.6.05  98,000/-  Canara      Connaught    Ms. Beena Devi,
                                                 Bank         Place      12/8,Sector-16,
                                                                         Rohini

P-236/Cr. -do-    804318    29.6.05   49,000/-  Syndicate    Naya Bazar  (name is not leg-
                                                 bank        , Delhi     ible) 4119, Naya 
                                                                         Bazar, Delhi
P-224-    -do-    011511    29.6.05   49,000/-  Central Bank Naya Bazar  Suresh Kumar, 408D,
225/cr.                                         of India,                Naya Bazar, Delhi

P-218-    -do-    082189    29.6.05   49,000/-  Punjab &     Connaught   Suresh Kumar, R/o 
219/ Cr.                                        Sind Bank,    place      4080, Naya Bazar,
                                                                         Delhi - 
P-229-    -do-    082190    29.6.05   45,000/-  Punjab &     Connaught   Suresh Kumar, R/o 
231/ Cr.                                        Sind Bank,    place      4080, Naya Bazar, 
                                                                         Delhi 
P-229-231/ Cr.
313144   7.7.05   281446    6.7.05   49,000/-   Canara Bank  Connaught   Suresh Kumar, A-
                                                             place,DD on 7/55, Sector-16,
                                                             service     Rohini 
                                                             Branch,

P-234/Cr  -do-    281445    6.7.05   70,000/-   Canara Bank  Connaught   Ms. Beena  Devi, 
                                                             Place       12/8, Sector-16,
                                                                         Rohini
P-235/Cr. -do-    002776    6.7.05   29,000     Indraprastha Extn. Cou-  Rohini Sunil Gupta,
                                                Bank         nter Sect-  363/364 Pocket A-1,
                                                             or-6,       Sector-16, Rohini,
                                                                         Delhi  110085
P-220-    -do-    002777    6.7.05   45,000/-   Indraprastha Sector-6,   Rohini Mukesh,
223/Cr.                                         Bank                     167, Pkt.-7,
                                                                         Sector-23,
                                                                         Rohini Delhi-85
P-220-    -do-    002778    6.7.05   45,000/-   Indraprastha  Sector-6,  Rohini Amit Kumar,
223/Cr.                                         Bank                     301/B-3, Sector -6,
                                                                         Rohini Delhi-85
P-220-    -do-   002779     6.7.05   45,000/-   Indraprastha  Sector-6,  Rohini Saranjeet
223/Cr.                                         Bank                     Singh, Flat No. 151,
                                                                         Pkt-6, Sector-23,
                                                                         Rohini, Delhi-85
P-220-    -do-   002780    6.7.05   48,000/-    Indraprastha  Sector-6,  Rohini Suresh Kumar.
223/Cr.                                         Bank                     1-2/8, Sector-16,
                                                                         Rohini,  Delhi-85
P-220-223/Cr. 
 

15. In WP 18854/05 decided on 19.10.2005, this Court had concurred with the decision of DDA refusing to regularize the delay in depositing the amount, accepting the view of the DDA, in the following terms:
  

10. It has been opined by the officer concerned, and in my opinion rightly, that the petitioner and all other persons detailed hereinabove are not genuine persons. Property dealers appear to be behind the whole scandal. In all probablility, original allottees have sold the allotments.

11. it is a highly improbable co-incident that over 13 persons residing in 13 different colonies would go to South Indian Bank Ltd., to prepare the pay orders and deposit the same in their respective accounts with DDA.

12. Delay in making the deposits in all the afore-noted cases have not been condoned. Delay in making deposit sought by the petitioner has not been condoned.

13. On the material available in the files as produced, in my opinion, decision of the Competent Authority of the respondent cannot be faulted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

14. Petitioner would, however, be entitled to the refund subject to cancellation charges as per policy of DDA.

16. In the other two writ petitions, WP (C) No's 18854/05 and 18603/05, the court took a similar view; the court had noted the detailed facts shown by the DDA to the effect that in those cases, one Sunil Kumar had been involved in the transaction, which was suspicious. The court had therefore, held that there was nothing unreasonable in the stand of DDA, declining to regularize the delay.

17. Mr. R. K. Saini, besides reiterating the contentions raised in the pleadings, also submitted that the view of the DDA could not be termed reasonable. It was also opposed to all canone of fairplay. The petitioner, it was submitted, had perfectly valid explanations for the submission of 13 demand drafts by seven persons. The petitioner's son helped him to secure loans through his friends and business associates; those loans were subsequently returned. If the DDA had adopted a fair procedure, the petitioner would have pointed out the circumstances. Instead, it arbitrarily determined that he had sold the plot, and that the seven persons were, like in the other decided cases, part of a land mafia.

18. Mr. Yeeshu Jain submitted, on the other hand that the facts of this case are similar to those decided in the other petitions. The DDA was justified in concluding that deposit of the demanded amounts through 13 demand drafts by seven persons having no connection with the petitioner, disclosed his complicity, and that he was not genuinely in need. The petitioner appeared to have sold the plot. Counsel also submitted that the demand drafts deposited by Shri Suresh Kumar showed that they were obtained by depositng cash; the concerned bank, Canara Bank, had confirmed this. Counsel also relied upon the original file, to submit that the DDA and its Vice Chairman took into consideration all these and other relevant facts.

19. The factual matrix shows that the petitioner had applied under a scheme in 1981. He was treated as a general category applicant, although a scheduled caste applicant. He was able to produce a valid certificate, on the basis of which this Court directed that he be given a flat, as per its order issued in 2002. His appeal was not entertained; however, the Supreme Court entertained the petition, and directed that the DDA ought not to cancel the allotment, issued on 9-2-2003. He deposited the amounts demanded in July 2005, and later withdrew the special leave petition. The DDA alleges that the delay of 844 days could not be condoned because the amounts were deposited by seven persons, which does not amount to the petitioner complying with the demand. Its file also indicates that the legal adviser was of the opinion that such deposit cannot be allowed, as also there would be a possibility of such persons claiming refund on a later date. The Vice Chairman concurred the view put up to him to decline the request for regularization, as seven persons' depositing on behalf of the petitioner could not be accepted. Earlier, on 28th April, 2006, while considering the request for regularization, the Vice Chairman had noted, inter alia, that It is noticed that while disposing off the writ petition (Civil) No. 18854/2005 and also Civil Writ Petition No. 18603/2005, the Hon'ble High Court observed that the benefit of deposits made by different persons cannot be given to the applicant/ allottee as there appeared to be involvement of property dealers/land mafia operating in DDA who would be the ultimate beneficiary of the allotment on concessional rates by DDA. Hon'ble High Court has, thus, directed that no benefit should be given in such cases where the suspicion has arisen while considering the regularisation of delay.

20. As is evident, the view based on interpretation of the court's order ultimately prevailed. In WP 18603/2005, the court, in its order had adverted to the detailed pleadings and observations of DDA, which not only showed that different persons had deposited the amounts on behalf of the allottees, but also that analysis of some other cases showed an identical pattern i.e payments of identical amounts after demand, initially, the delay in all the cases being the same; last Installment in all the cases being made by paying Rs. 55,000/- as against higher amounts demanded. Likewise, documents were also done by persons other than the allottees. DDA also appears to have issued a show cause notice, before taking action, in at least one of the cases, i.e in WP 18603/2005. These show that the DDA had observed a pattern in all the cases, even to the extent that similar requests for condensation of delay were made the same date, i.e. on 28th April, 2004.

21. No rule or policy requiring only the allottee, and prohibiting any other person on his behalf, to deposit the amounts, was cited on behalf of the DDA. It is undisputed that the petitioner was ever informed that the genuineness of his application was doubted on that ground. The file reveals that while the case was routinely processed, someone mentioned about seven persons depositing the amount, and the Vice Chairman took the view that this Court had indicated in the previous order that such circumstances throw a reasonable suspicion which would justify denial of the request. I am of the opinion that each case has to be seen in the background of its peculiar circumstances. The petitioner had, unlike others, battled the DDA earlier, on allotment, and later even on the issue of cost to be recovered. He secured a partially favorable order. In the meanwhile, when his petition was pending in the Supreme Court, a demand was raised; the court directed that the allotment ought not to be cancelled. In his letter written after the issuance of the impugned order, the petitioner stated as follows:

I being a govt. employee and having little income I was unable to deposit the plot cost at my own. Therefore, I asked my son Amit to help monetarily, My son Amit is in the busines of packaging material supply. So, he requested his close business relations namely Suresh Kumar, Saranjeet Singh, Amit Chauha, Mukesh Kumar, etc., to make bank drafts towards the DDA and he will adjust these cash amounts in business transactions. They all agreed to help him and thus the bank drafts were deposited. Similarly, I also took friendly cash loan from Mr. Suresh Kumar, and Mrs. Beena of Rs. 2,86,000/- and I,86,000/- and 1,84,800/- respectively in July 2005 and deposited with the DDA. However, I have returned the friendly loan to both of them vide cheque nos.345236 & 345233 of Punjab National Bank, Muradabad (UP) on 2.4.2006&16.4.2006 (copy enclosed). It is rightly said that a friend in need is friend indeed. Thus, all of them have helped me monetarily in the time of need and there is no balance to be paid either by me or my son. This fact can be verified. Besides as per the argument of your panel lawyer in Hon'ble High Court dated 19.07.06 I have come to know that you have disbelief that am hereby submitting an affidavit on Rs. 10/- non judicial stamp paper attested by a notary on 4.8.2006 that I have not sold this plot till date and I also declare you that I have refunded the borrowed money to the persons concerned. On 09.07.2006, the Hon'ble High Court has also granted stay to me on this plot after hearing the above facts (copy enclosed). In view of the above facts and circumstances, I honestly and humbly request you to restore my plot. I do not want any further legal compalications. If there is any kind of due pending against me than I am ready to deposit it at your office as per the DDA policy. I also ensure you that I will fulfilll all other formalities or submit documents, if requested, in this case in future.

A copy of the letter is on record; it is also on record of the DDA. Evidently, as per the petitioner's version, the amounts were borrowed from different persons, and the two major sums borrowed from Suresh Kumar, and Bimla Devi, were returned to them in April, 2006, before issuaance of the impugned letter, through cheques drawn for the purpose.

22. Long ago, the Supreme Court, in its decision in State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei held as follows:

An order by the State to the prejudice of a person in derogation of his vested rights may be made only in accordance with the basic rules of justice and fairplay. The deciding authority, it is true, is not in the position of a Judge called upon to decide an action between contesting parties, and strict compliance with the forms of judicial procedure may not be insisted upon. He is however under a duty to give the person against whom an enquiry is held an opportunity to set up his version or defense and an opportunity to correct or to controvert any evidence in the possession of the authority which is sought to be relied upon to his prejudice. For that purpose the person against whom in enquiry is held must be informed of the case he is called upon to meet, and the evidence in support thereof. The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would therefore arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed: it need not be shown to be super-added. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case.

In a later decision, in Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal , the court held as follows:

21. Prof. Wade says:

A judicial decision is made according to law. An administrative decision is made according to administrative policy. A quasi-judicial function is an administrative function which the law requires to be exercised in some respects as if it were judicial. A quasi-judicial decision is, therefore, an administrative decision which is subject to some measure of judicial procedure, such as the principles of natural justice.

22. An administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rule expressed in the Latin maxim audi alteram partem. It means that the decision maker should afford to any party to a dispute an opportunity to present his case. A large number of authorities are on this point and we will not travel over the field of authorities. What is now not in dispute is that the person concerned must be informed of the case against him and the evidence in support thereof and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. (Ridge v. Baldwin3; State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei6.)

23. The shift now is to a broader notion of fairness or fair procedure in the administrative action. As far as the administrative officers are concerned, the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly (See : Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India7; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner8; Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India9 and M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar10.) For this concept of fairness, adjudicative settings are not necessary, nor it is necessary to have lis inter partes. There need not be any struggle between two opposing parties giving rise to a lis. There need not be resolution of lis inter partes. The duty to act judicially or to act fairly may arise in widely differing circumstances. It may arise expressly or impliedly depending upon the context and considerations. All these types of non-adjudicative administrative decision making are now covered under the general rubric of fairness in the administration. But then even such an administrative decision unless it affects ones personal rights or ones property rights, or the loss of or prejudicially affects something which would juridically be called at least a privilege does not involve the duty to act fairly consistently with the rules of natural justice. We cannot discover any principle contrary to this concept. 23. Another issue is that the court, in Article 226 while exercising judicial review, pronounces upon the relative merits, rights and wrongs of the parties to the lis; decisions have to be read as indicative of the reasoning on the facts of the case. It is settled law that no order or judgment of court can be read as a statute; it has to be interpreted as a whole, in the light of the surrounding circumstances. ( Ref Ramesh Chandra Daga v. Rameshwari Bai and Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Action Enviornmental Group ). In this case, the orders of this Court in the other writ petitions,(WP 18854/05 and 18603/05) which were issued on the facts of those cases, have been interpreted as a rule, or as statutes enunciated for the behavior of the DDA. As observed by the court in those cases, DDA's actions would have to be tested on the circumstance whether the relevant facts were considered by it, or not.

24. While the DDA may be perfectly justified in its concern that allotments meant for the needy should not be misused, by a few vested interests, as it would subvert the purpose underlying its schemes, yet, it ought to observe basic rules of fairness, or else it wold be acting upon caprice, tarring alike all those borrowing amounts and sums of money from their relatives and friends, bona fide, to meet the demands spelt out. It is a common phenomenon that allottees obtain loans and advances, on the basis of allotment letters, and the institutions issue cheques/ demand drafts directly; yet others may prefer informal modes of financing. These are matters of choice, and the DDA cannot fetter its discretion in sifting out undesirable elements, by stating that all allottees who permit others to deposit on their behalf would not be granted possession. If indeed in given cases, there are grounds for suspicion it would be in the fitness of things that the allottee is given some opportunity to meet the allegations, before a decision is taken. Anything short of such fairplay would be a travesty of the rule of law, and result in caprice and whim prevailing- something which cannot be tolerated in public functioning. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded by the reasons given by the DDA; indeed the petitioner seems to have some explanation for the course of action adopted by him, which was not considered when his allotment was not restored on the basis of unverified suspicions.

25. As a result of the foregoing discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed. The DDA is accordingly directed to consider the request of the petitioner for regularization/ condensation of the period of delay in depositing amounts towards the demand for the flat, after considering all the materials and circumstances, including the concerns expressed by it, after consideration of the petitioner's explanation, and giving him a reasonable opportunity. The decision shall be directly communicated to the petitioner within eight weeks, and shall be a reasoned one.

26. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms, with no order as to costs.