Delhi High Court
Sunita Rani vs Delhi Development Authority on 29 March, 2011
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON: 29.03.2011
+ LPA 273/2011
CM APPL.6024/2011
SUNITA RANI ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor with
Ms. Alpana Pandey, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate for DDA
along with Mr. N.C. Bhatt, Assistant Director
(Commercial Estate).
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers YES
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be YES
reported in the Digest?
MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
% Issue Notice. Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of DDA and
submits that appeal can be disposed of at this stage since she has instructions to make a
statement. Mr. N.C. Bhatt, Assistant Director (Commercial Estate) is present in Court and has
brought the relevant files. Learned counsel states that the Petitioner's name can be included in
the forthcoming draw of lots, since she is entitled to a commercial unit, as per this Court's order
LPA 273/2011 Page 1
of 04.09.2006, and that after her claim is satisfied, the draw of lots vis-à-vis other applicants in
the reserved categories would be held.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner had occasion to approach this Court several times in
the past. She belongs to the category of reserved candidates entitled to a fixed quota from
amongst the shops available for allotment to eligible candidates. After her earlier Writ Petition
No.2673/2003 was disposed of, the DDA took the position that the directions in that order
merely resulted in an entitlement for the petitioner's name to be included in the draw of lots.
The petitioner sought to initiate contempt proceedings but was unsuccessful. Similarly, the
attempt to seek clarification of the order was unsuccessful too. She was constrained to file
another Writ Petition No.9871/2006 where the Court after considering the records of the DDA,
as well as in other disposed of Writ Petitions, was of the view that the stand of the DDA was
unfair and arbitrary since it amounted to discrimination between the two members of the same
class, i.e. reserved eligible candidates for allotment of such shop units.
3. By an order dated 04.09.2006, this Court in its operative directions stated as follows: -
"27. As a result of the above conclusions, the DDA is directed to
include the petitioner's name, in the next draw of lots, for the
allotment of a shop in the category where shops are being given at
reserve price and the petitioner shall be allotted the shop at the
current reserve price. The directions shall be complied with, in eight
weeks from today."
4. It is a matter of record that the DDA wrote to the petitioner, as well as others on
12.02.2007 stating about availability of shops in certain market areas. The petitioner's position
was that the entire facts were not disclosed, that the inventory of all the shops was not made
available and deliberately concealed.
5. She apparently also raised other grievances, which she sought to agitate in the
contempt proceedings, i.e. Cont. Case (C) No.1385/2006; the same was disposed of on
LPA 273/2011 Page 2
06.05.2009. The operative part of the Court's directions, while disposing of the contempt
proceedings, were as follows: -
"8. Learned counsel for the respondent-DDA states that the
petitioner can be given a fresh list of reserved shops presently
available and she can exercise her option in terms of judgment dated
4th September, 2006. The allotment will be at current reserve price.
It is open to the petitioner to approach the respondent-DDA for
availing this benefit/concession given by the DDA in their affidavit
dated 12th February, 2007. In case the petitioner makes any such
request, the same will be considered expeditiously by the
respondent-DDA."
6. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal where the Division Bench altered the contempt
order and deleted the above directions. She was unsuccessful in her attempt to have the matter
re-opened in appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court.
7. In the Writ Petition, which led to the impugned order in this case, the petitioner agitated
the issue about the DDA not having included all available units while making the offer to her on
12.02.2007. Her petition was, however, not entertained and was dismissed at the admission
stage.
8. In this background of facts, this Court had, on the first date of hearing of the appeal,
asked as to whether the DDA could at this stage include the petitioner's name having regard to
her clear entitlement for a shop unit. The procedure indicated by the counsel for the DDA was
that the preference of each applicant would be fed into the computer and after analyzing the
matches, the allotment would be given on the basis of a draw. This obviously meant that the
petitioner's entitlement to a clear unit would, if exposed to the vagaries of the draw of lots held
by the DDA, result in her merely been given a chance to be included in the draw. Obviously,
that was not the purport or meaning of the directions given by this Court in the Writ Petition
allowed on 04.09.2006, i.e. W.P. No.9871/2006. A reading of that judgment would clearly show
LPA 273/2011 Page 3
that the Court intended that the petitioner had to be given a firm allotment and not merely a
chance of participation in the draw of lots.
9. In view of the clarification recorded in the previous paragraph of the judgment, this Court
is of the opinion that the appeal can be disposed of with suitable directions in line of the
statement (of the DDA). In the circumstances, the parties are directed as follows: -
(i) The petitioner shall be present before the Deputy Director (Commercial Estates) at
10:30 AM on 30.03.2011. The said official shall hand over the list of the commercial
units/flats, which are to be included in the forthcoming draw of lots.
(ii) The petitioner shall fill the appropriate form and indicate choice in order of
preference.
(iii)The DDA shall first process the petitioner's application through preferential allotment
and thereafter proceed with allotment in accordance with its published order of
priority.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the above directions.
Order dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
G.P.MITTAL
(JUDGE)
MARCH 29, 2011
/vks/
LPA 273/2011 Page 4
