Vinod Bhojwani vs Dda
2010 Latest Caselaw 2430 Del

33.
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Judgment Delivered on: 05.05.2010

+      W.P.(C) 9214/2009

       VINOD BHOJWANI                                    ..... Petitioner
                 Through :      Mr. R.K. Saini and Mr. Sitab Ali
                                Chaudhary, Advs.

                    versus

       DDA                                             ..... Respondent
                    Through :   Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Adv.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

          1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
             the judgment?
          2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
          3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties, writ petition is set

down for final hearing and disposal.

2. Brief facts of the case, as set out in the present petition, are that in

the year 1979 the petitioner applied for an MIG flat under the New

Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. The name of the petitioner was

included in the draw held on 21.3.1994 and was allotted a flat

bearing no.406, Pocket 3, Sector 19, Dwarka, Delhi. According to the

petitioner the demand-cum-allotment letter was not received by him

as it was sent by the DDA at a wrong address i.e. BA-278, Janakpuri.

From the year 1994 till February, 2006, the petitioner was neither informed by the DDA nor the petitioner had any information that a

flat was allotted to him in the draw, which was held.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is only pursuant to a public

advertisement issued by the DDA in the newspapers to the effect

that all registrants of MIG category under NPRS 1979 Scheme have

already been allotted flats and registrants who have not received

the refund / allotment may contact the DDA personally. The

petitioner visited the office of DDA on 13.2.2006 when he was

informed that a flat at Dwarka had already been allotted to him in

the year 1994. Petitioner is stated to have made a representation to

the DDA on 13.2.2006 informing the DDA that he had not received

any allotment / demand letter and neither there was any change in

his address. The petitioner received no response from the DDA.

Petitioner made another representation to DDA on 21.2.2007.

Petitioner also visited the office of the DDA in the month of

February, 2008, when he inspected the file and learnt that the

allotment letter had been sent at the wrong address. Another

representation dated 13.2.2008 was made to the DDA but no

response was received. Petitioner then made an application under

Right to Information Act for supply of relevant documents and

information when petitioner was informed that his case for allotment

was under consideration. By letter dated 1.7.2008 petitioner was

called upon to submit attested copies of his registration documents,

which were submitted by the petitioner on 9.7.2008. Thereafter, no response was received from the DDA except a letter dated

7.10.2008 by which his representation was rejected.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the record of the DDA would

show that the demand-cum-allotment letter was, in fact, sent at the

wrong address to the petitioner in the year 1994 and in view thereof

the case of the petitioner would be covered by the Wrong Address

Policy of the DDA. Counsel further submits that even the show cause

notice issued to the petitioner was sent at the wrong address.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that

demand-cum-allotment letter was sent to the petitioner but the

same was returned undelivered. The show cause notice was also

sent to the same wrong address and in the absence of any response

to the show cause notice the allotment made to the petitioner was

cancelled. In the counter affidavit, there is no explanation as to why

the DDA did not respond to the representations made by the

petitioner and also that the DDA did not follow its own policy which

is formulated by them.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the original record.

The basic facts are not in dispute that in the year 1979 the

petitioner applied for an MIG flat under the New Pattern Registration

Scheme, 1979. The name of the petitioner was included in the draw

held on 21.3.1994 and was allotted a flat bearing no.406, Pocket 3,

Sector 19, Dwarka, Delhi. As per the original record which has been

produced in Court shows that the demand-cum-allotment letter was

sent to the petitioner by the DDA at the wrong address. The original record also shows that the show cause notice was also sent at the

wrong address. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be

made to suffer on account of the lapse and inaction on the part of

the DDA. Further, I find that there is no explanation at all as to why

the DDA did not rectify its own mistake and why the DDA did not

apply the Wrong Address Policy to the case of the petitioner. The

petitioner has visited the office of the DDA on 13.2.2006 and

immediately made a representation to the DDA. Petitioner

thereafter made another representations to the DDA on 21.2.2007,

February, 2008 and 28.8.2008 to which the DDA did not give any

satisfactory response. DDA has not only deprived the petitioner of a

flat, which could have been handed over to him in the year 1994 but

after a mistake was pointed out the DDA has for the reasons best

known to them not considered the representations of the petitioner

in accordance with law and on the basis of their own policy. The

conduct of the DDA is to be depreciated. Accordingly, writ petition is

allowed. A flat, if available, in the same area, shall be allotted to the

petitioner within a period of three months from the receipt of the

order, at the cost to be worked out of the year 1994 together with

interest @ 12% or the current cost, whichever, is lower as in

February, 2006, as per the terms of the policy. The Vice-Chairman,

DDA, is directed to appoint a senior officer to conduct an enquiry

and file a report as to why the representations of the petitioner were

not dealt with as also why the case of the petitioner was not dealt

with in accordance with Wrong Address Policy of the DDA when the original record shows that the demand-cum-allotment letter was, in

fact, sent at the wrong address.

7. Writ petition stands disposed of in view of above. Costs, quantified

at Rs.10,000/-.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

May 05, 2010 'msr'