Smt. Veena Wanchoo And Another vs Delhi Development Authority
2009 Latest Caselaw 3770 Del

*                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    W.P.(C.) No.4041/2007 & C.M. No.7607/2007

%                               Date of Decision: 15.09.2009

Smt. Veena Wanchoo and another                     .... Petitioners
                   Through Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Advocate

                                        Versus

Delhi Development Authority                       .... Respondent
                    Through Ms. Alpana Pandey for Mr. D.S.
                            Mehandru,    Advocate     for   the
                            UOI/respondent No.1.
                            Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate for
                            the DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may be                  YES
         allowed to see the judgment?
2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                     NO
3.       Whether the judgment should be reported in                 NO
         the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. The petitioner has sought a direction against the

respondent/DDA that the allotment of public houses under the FHS

2004 be declared to be arbitrary and illegal and therefore be set aside

and to allot houses to the petitioners as applied by them in the Vasant

Kunj area.

2. The respondent had announced the Festival Housing Scheme

2004. Under the said scheme about 2500 plots were available for

allotment to the general public. The scheme for allotment for general

public also had reservation of 1% for physically handicapped persons.

It was also stipulated in the scheme that in case the requisite number

of applications are not received in the reserved category, the remaining

flats shall be offered to non-reserved category.

3. According to the petitioners since the number of flats which were

to be offered were 2500, therefore, 25 flats had been reserved for

physically handicapped persons including the petitioners, Smt.Veena

Wanchoo and Shri Rajender Wanchoo. The petitioners submitted two

applications for allotment of 2 BHK and 3 BHK flats in Vasant Kunj

area. The scheme was closed on 24th November, 2004 and

computerized draw was held for allotment of flats. The petitioners were

not successful in the allotment of flats.

4. The petitioners contended that their names had not been

included in the zone of consideration for the computerized draw.

Petitioners had allegedly borrowed the money to pay the applications‟

amount of Rs.1.00 lakh and were paying a heavy rate of interest on the

same and, therefore, they made representations, however, they were

informed that no flats had been reserved for physically handicapped

persons in Vasant Kunj area.

5. Aggrieved by the actions of the respondents, the petitioners filed

the present petition and sought allotment of flats to them and

cancellation of draw of flats on various grounds.

6. The petition is contested by the respondent/DDA contending inter

alia that the policy for reservation for physically handicapped category

is reserving the flats area wise and where the flats constructed and to

be allotted are more than 50 in numbers. The policy was allegedly

framed at the highest level. The respondent asserted that there is no

illegality or arbitrariness in allotment of public houses under FHS 2004

either in the general category or in the category of physically

handicapped persons.

7. The respondent contended that in the draw of lots, no flat has

been allotted to the petitioners and, therefore, they cannot make any

grievances and they are not entitled for any relief. Draw was held in

presence of judges where a lucky number was picked up on random

basis. The respondent disclosed that total number of applications

received under the scheme and put in the draw in question were

1,64,095 against the total number of flats of 2506. Regarding the

number of flats it was asserted that under clause 22 (b) of the

Brochure, DDA had the right to increase and decrease the numbers of

flats in the scheme according to the availability, and, therefore, no

irregularity can be imputed on account of increase of number of flats for

which the draw was held. Regarding the draw of lots, respondent

clarified that draw of lots was held after re-shuffling of the application

forms received under the scheme and after allotting random numbers to

all the applicants. After the allotment of random number they are

randomed serial-wise by the computer. The flats are also re-shuffled

and a cross-reference of the flats is also prepared. This procedure,

according to the respondent, is open and is done in the presence of

judges. For lucky draw, the random digits are taken out from 5

difference boxes in the presence of the persons who are present for the

draw and the lucky number thereon forms the basis for selecting the

successful candidates. After the lucky is number drawn, the selection

runs sequentially. For the draw of Festival Housing Scheme, respondent

contended that the lucky number drawn was 1,61,834 and all the

allotments that were made after the said number and ran sequentially.

8. Regarding petitioners, it was contended that they had applied

under the physically handicapped category vide applications No.15007

and 1172 respectively. After re-shuffling the petitioner no.1 was

allotted number 94716 and the petitioner No.2 was allotted random

serial number 52162. The random numbers before serialization were

302508 and 166373 respectively. According to the respondent, the

highest random serial number of an allotted flat in physically

handicapped category was 584 and, therefore, the petitioners could not

succeed in the said draw in the PH category. In the circumstances, it is

contended that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the allotment of

flats.

9. The respondent also contended that one per cent of the

reservation is made separately category-wise and locality-wise and to

ensure fairness in the procedure, one per cent of the flats allocated in

the each category in each locality were reserved by the respondent

under physically handicapped quota.

10. A additional affidavit of Shri O.P. Gupta, Director (Housing), Delhi

Development Authority, dated 13th July, 2009 was also filed explaining

the allotment made to Gopal Meena and Saroji as the petitioner had

alleged irregularity in allotment to them according to their numbers.

The respondent also explained that in Kondli Gharoli there were 74 flats

which were allotted and not 33 flats as was alleged by the petitioners.

The respondent also clarified that a reserved category person is

considered first under a reserved category and if he does not get a flat

under the reserved category, he is considered under the general

category. It was stated that because of this policy, Shadi Ram Sharma

was allotted a flat under the general quota. It was also reiterated that

the allotment of the flats started with number 161834 and thereafter

the number went in cyclic manner. The number started from 161834

and went till end, i.e., 164095 and then started from the beginning of

the random number 1.

11. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the

petition, counter affidavit, rejoinder, additional affidavit and documents

have been considered. In W.P.C. 16025/2004, Pramod Kumar v. D.D.A

and others, procedure for allotment has been upheld by this court. The

relevant extract from the said decision is as follows:

"8 ................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 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.

9. The Random Numbers so assigned to each applicant are then stated to be arranged in seriatum, in ascending order, starting from serial number 1 till the last total number of applicants, which in the present case was 93775. 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.

10. 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". The Lucky Random Serial Number is stated to be picked, one from each of the five 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 said boxes by Independent Judges, who are stated to be Senior Government Officers. The numbers 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 allottee 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, allotment

continue to be made in ascending order from the said Random Serial Numbers."

12. This procedure for draw of flats was upheld by this Court. The

same procedure has been followed by the respondent/DDA in the

present case. Consequently, the procedure adopted by the respondent

in drawing the lucky number and then allotting the flats from the lucky

number in the cyclic number till the last random number and starting

again from the first number cannot be faulted. The petitioner have not

faulted this procedure and has rather contended that certain flats have

not been allotted according to the lucky number drawn as some of the

numbers are just before the lucky number and not after the lucky

number.

13. It is cannot be disputed that on the basis of random serial

number the petitioner No.1 had serial No.94716, whereas petitioner

No.2 had random serial number 52162 and therefore, they could not

be allotted flat. A single Judge of this Court in W.P.C. 4472 of 2007,

Ravi Jain v. DDA and other had relied on Pramod Kumar (supra) and

had upheld the similar process of draw of lots, by order dated 17th

November, 2008. It was held that on the basis of random number

allotment of the flats on the basis of lucky random serial number and,

thereafter in a cyclic manner cannot be faulted. The decision of the

single Judge was upheld in LPA No.83 of 2009 titled Ravi Jain v. DDA

and others by order dated 20th February, 2009. The procedure for

allotment of a random serial number and thereafter lucky random serial

number being picked up and allotment not made on the basis of

original application number was upheld. Consequently, the procedure

adopted by the respondent cannot be faulted and the petitioners are not

entitled for allotment of flat pursuant to allotment held on 28th January,

2005 by adopting a procedure under which random serial numbers

were given and thereafter a lucky number was drawn and the flats have

been allotted in cyclic manner from the lucky number onwards.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if the lucky

number was 161834 than the allotment could not be made in respect of

application number 1449 having random No.161011 as indicated in the

photocopy of draw of lots filed by the respondent. The original record

of the DDA was called and was perused and it has transpired that the

number is 161911 which come after the lucky number 161834 and,

therefore, it cannot be faulted. The learned counsel for the petitioners

has also challenged the list on the ground as to how allottees of

reserved category have been put together in the list of allotment of flats

since the allotment was done on the basis of lucky number. The

explanation by the learned counsel for the respondent that 19 flats in

the list of draw of flats in the beginning are of the reserved category and

the list has been generated by the computer which has parameters of

reserved category and therefore they have been shown separately

cannot be doubted. What is to be seen is whether the random serial

number of all the candidates in the reserved category have their random

serial number after the lucky serial number. From perusal of the

random serial number of these allottees it is apparent that their

random serial numbers are after lucky number 161834. Putting the

name of the allottees who have been allotted under the reserved

category prior to the general category does not reflect any irregularity or

illegality in the draw of lots but it is a distinct feasibility of a computer

having parameter of reserved category in its database. The plea of the

learned counsel for the petitioners is therefore not acceptable. Merely

because the reserved category allottees have been shown separately

prior to general category allottees, the process of draw of lots cannot be

faulted in the present facts and circumstances. In any case, the random

number of all the 19 persons shown in the list dated 28th January,

2005 at page 107 of the paper book have their random number after the

first lucky number 161834. In the circumstances, there is no illegality

or such irregularity which will entitle petitioners to set aside the

allotment made by the respondent pursuant to draw held on 28th

January, 2005.

15. The procedure for reserving the flats for the reserved category

according to category-wise and locality-wise also cannot be faulted in

the facts and circumstances. No other point has been urged by the

learned counsel for the petitioners.

16. The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit in the facts and

circumstances and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The writ

petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their

own costs.

September 15, 2009                                    ANIL KUMAR, J.
„AA/Dev‟