Raghubir Singh Arora vs Delhi Development Authority
2009 Latest Caselaw 1423 Del

41

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 17697/2006

%                                Date of decision : 16th April, 2009

      RAGHUBIR SINGH ARORA                  ... Petitioner

                           Through   Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate.

                  versus

      D.D.A.                     ..... Respondent
                           Through Mr. Manoj K. Singh, Advocate.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                                ORDER

1. The petitioner was registered under the NPR Scheme-1979 for

allotment of a MIG flat.

2. As per the respondent-DDA, the petitioner was successful in

draw of flats held on 1st June, 1987 and demand cum allotment letter

dated 7th/ 15th July, 1987 was sent to the petitioner at 11/14 A, Moti

Nagar, New Delhi-110015. However, the said letter was received

back undelivered with the remarks "left without address". Thereafter

the aforesaid demand cum allotment letter was sent to the petitioner at his occupational address i.e. Poonam Garments, Ram Nagar,

Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031, but neither the said letter was received

back as undelivered nor there was any response from the petitioner.

It is stated that the allotment was cancelled on the ground of non-

payment.

3. Subsequently, the respondent-DDA as per policy decision

decided to charge cancellation charges, if the original allotment was

not acceptable or on non-payment of the demand to continue with

the registration under NPR Scheme -1979 and for being eligible for

the subsequent draw of lots for flats. Counsel for the respondent

admits that no letter was written by the respondent-DDA informing

the petitioner about the said policy decision and requirement to pay

cancellation charges. Counsel for the respondent-DDA states that an

advertisement was published in the newspaper, but DDA has not

placed on record any such advertisement. In view of the penal

consequences of the policy decision, individual notices in the case of

defaulters should have been issued. Mere advertisement in

newspaper may not be sufficient notice to individuals. Advertisement

can be missed. It is apparent that initially registration of the

petitioner was not cancelled for failure to pay demanded amount in 1987. DDA has continued to retain the registration amount. There is

difference between cancellation of registration and cancellation of

allotment. Cancellation of registration deprives a person from being

eligible for allotment in future for all times to come. Cancellation of

allotment results in cancellation of allotment of a particular flat. In

these circumstances, cancellation of registration on basis of

subsequent policy decision after 1988 for failure to pay cancellation

amount without notice is not justified and is arbitrary.

4. The petitioner's case was considered as a tail-end priority case

and was allotted a flat in Dwarka in the computerized draw of flats

held on 31st March, 2004 on cash down basis. However, DDA did not

post the demand cum allotment letter, but later on issued a show

cause notice asking why the allotment of flat made in the

computerized draw of flats held on 31st March, 2004, be not

cancelled. It is apparent that notice for show cause was wrongly

issued admittedly as demand cum allotment letter after draw of lots

in 2004 was never issued.

5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed

that DDA will include the name of the petitioner, in the next mini

draw of lots for allotment of MIG flat. The respondent will be entitled to charge the rates as were prevailing after four months from the

date when draw of lots was held on 31st March, 2004. In addition,

the respondent will also be entitled to charge cancellation charges

and interest thereon @ 15% per annum. DDA will be entitled to

verify the source of payment and whether the petitioner fulfils the

eligibility requirements as per the scheme and allotment Rules.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

     APRIL 16, 2009
     NA/P

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 3010/2008

      HOTEL DILOMAT & ANR             .... Petitioner
                     Through           Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Advocate.

                     versus

      N.D.M.C.               ..... Respondent
                          Through      Ms. Madhu Tewatia, Advocate with
                                       Ms. Sidhi Arora, Advocate for NDMC.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

              ORDER
%              16.04.2009

1. The petitioner impugns order dated 9th April, 2008 issued under

Section 327 and 331 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994.

2. The petitioner is running a hotel from 9, Sardar Patel Marg, Chanakya

Puri, New Delhi. It is stated that as a result of order dated 9th April, 2008,

issued by the respondent Council, they cannot operate and run restaurant

in the said hotel.

3. A number of allegations have been made in the writ petition against

the respondents. However, I need not deal with the said allegations as I feel

that the writ petition can be disposed of and decided on short points. It is

admitted by the respondents that order dated 9th April, 2008 was passed

without issue of show cause notice and hearing the petitioner. In this connection, I may notice here that the respondent themselves have filed on

record a license dated 25th June, 2008, granted to the petitioner under

Section 331 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994. The petitioner,

on the other hand, has filed another license with their rejoinder, dated 25th

June, 2008. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that both the

licenses are dated 25th June, 2008. It is stated that these two licenses

enclosed with the rejoinder are identical to the licenses enclosed by the

respondents as annexure R-5 and 6. The petitioner has all requisite licenses

as are required to be obtained from the respondent Council. I need not

examine and go into merit and demerits of allegations made by the

petitioner and respondents. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the

petitioner probably does not have requisite license from Delhi Police. But

this fact is disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. Another contention

raised by the respondents is that the licences issued to the petitioner relate

to restaurants in enclosed areas. This again is disputed by the counsel for

the petitioner and it is pointed out that licenses are issued for the premises

and not for the specific areas. He has drawn my attention to the licenses

and states that on the basis of similar licences, several other entertainment

places are serving food and even preparing food in open area.

4. It cannot be disputed that the impugned order dated 9th April, 2008 is ...........nature and has adverse consequences on the petitioner. It is

difficult to run a hotel without a restaurant. It is obvious in view of the

order dated 9th April, 2008, the petitioner's business and guests of the

petitioner would have suffered extreme prejudice and harassment. In these

circumstances, the respondent before issuing order dated 9th April, 2008

should have issued show cause notice and give an opportunity to the

petitioner to present its point of view and explain their stand. In the

present case, there is clearly a failure to comply with principal of natural

justice.

5. In view of the above facts, order dated 9th April, 2008 is hereby

quashed. Respondent Council will be at liberty to issue show cause notice,

if required and after calling upon and hearing the petitioner, can pass an

appropriate order in accordance with law. If any adverse order is passed

against the petitioner, he will be at liberty to challenge the same.

The petitioner stands disposed of.

SANJIV KHANNA,J APRIL 16, 2009