Hukam Chand Suman vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1674 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of OA No. 409/1998 filed by the petitioner. Petitioner in the OA had questioned the order dated 22.12.1995 issued by respondents vide letter No. S-V/35/RKP/TB(A)/95 demanding from the petitioner's son payment @ Rs. 3,060/- per month for 31 months amounting to Rs.94,860/- instead of recovering normal license fee of Rs. 210/- per month or at best at double the rate, i.e., Rs. 420/- totalling to Rs. 13,020/- in respect of the earlier quarter No. 341, Sector-4, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022.

2. The facts culminating in the filing of the writ petition may be briefly noted:

(i) The petitioner had retired as Under Secretary, Ministry of Law on 31.1.1993. He was in occupation of Government quarter No. 341, Sector-4, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022. Petitioner's son Kanwal Suman was also in Government service and was working as Inspector, Central Excise and Customs. Petitioner's son had been residing with the petitioner and not claiming any House Rent Allowance. Petitioner's son had applied for regularization of the allotment of the quarter No. 341, Sector-4, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022 in his name or the allotment of any other suitable quarter to him.

(ii) Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. J.P. Sengh submitted that despite the petitioner's son having applied for regularization of the above quarter in his name or the allotment of suitable alternate accommodation, the respondents failed to do either. He submits that the first time they conveyed the allotment of an alternate quarter was in November, 1994. Mr. Sengh submitted that without going into the controversy of whether the respondents were responsible for delaying the allotment or not, at least the petitioner ought not to be charged penal rate of Rs. 3,060/-, i.e., up to November, 1994 when accommodation was sanctioned for the first time.

(iii) It may be noted that it is the respondent's case that the petitioner and his son had deliberately delayed the matter. It is urged that instead of accepting the offered quarter, he was submitting representation to the Minister of State, Urban Development and writing for regularization for a type-IV quarter to which, he was not entitled. Ultimately, he accepted the last allotment of quarter No. 35, Sector-5, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, which was a type-II allotment. It is stated that the said quarter was allotted subject to the petitioner clearing the dues on account of over stay in the house, calculated at Rs. 95,065/- up to 16.12.1995. Petitioner had deposited 50% of the amount, amounting to Rs. 47,500/- while his son had also undertaken to pay the balance in monthly Installments. Instead, the petitioner failed to pay the amount and chose to file OA before the Tribunal and now, the present writ petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on Annexure P-III at page 30 of the Paper Book being the letter dated 15.2.1993 filed by Kanwal Suman, petitioner's son. Petitioner's son by the said letter, had sought regularization of quarter No. 341, Sector-4, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. Alternatively, he had requested for allotment of any other quarter at Lodi Road. His father's No objection and other documents as required, were furnished. The respondents, in turn, vide their letter dated 19.4.1993, called upon the petitioner's son to furnish photocopies of ration card etc. Petitioner's son duly complied with the same. Petitioner also wrote to the respondents in June, 1993 requesting for regularization. The respondents vide their letter of 23.7.1993, permitted the petitioner to occupy the existing accommodation for two months. Petitioner's son again reminded the respondents for allotment confirming through his office that he was residing with his father and had not drawn House Rent Allowance w.e.f. January, 1990. Petitioner also informed that his wife was immobile. He sought further permission to stay for four months. It would be relevant in this connection to refer to a letter dated 22.11.1994, while referring to the representation made by Kanwal Suman to the Minister for Urban Development. Petitioner's son was informed that it has been decided to sanction ad hoc allotment of type-B accommodation in the adjoining locality. The department of Excise had put an endorsement that the office had not received any allotment letter allotting quarter No. 57, Sector-5, R.K. Puram, New Delhi to Shri Kanwal Suman. It appears that in the interregnum, Kanwal Suman had been transferred to the Central Excise Audit located in Nehru Place and accordingly, the Administrative Officer vide his letter dated November, 1995, directed the communication received from the respondents to the said Division. Petitioner's son on receipt of the said communication conveying allotment of quarter No. 771, Sector-1, R.K. Puram, recorded that he could not take possession as he was on audit inspection. He again made the request for allotment to another suitable adjoining area.

4. From the correspondence on record, we are not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner that the respondents were responsible for not communicating proper sanction of the allotment and on account of his son's transfer to Audit department, the communications were received late resulting in possession being taken later. We are of the view that the petitioner or his son himself should have followed up and taken all steps especially from the date when the ad hoc sanction was conveyed. In these circumstances, it appears to us that in the interests of justice, petitioner and/or his son should be made liable for and to pay the penal/market rent @ Rs.3,060/- after the intimation of the ad hoc sanction, i.e. on 22.11.1994, say from 1st of December, 1994.

5. We accordingly quash the order of dismissal of the OA filed by the petitioner and direct that the petitioner would be liable to pay license fee @ Rs.210/- up to November, 1994 and thereafter, @ Rs. 3,060/- up to the date of occupation of quarter. Petitioner be given credit for the payment already made.

Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.