Pitamber Dutt vs Dda And Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 301 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) No.5180/2011

                                                      Decided on: 16.01.2012

IN THE MATTER OF
PITAMBER DUTT                                 ..... Petitioner
                              Through : Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv.

                  versus

DDA AND ANR                                   ..... Respondents
                              Through : Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey, Adv.

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI


HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter

alia for a series of reliefs, all of which pertain to the disposal cost of a LIG

Flat bearing No.29-G, Type-I, Pocket A-2, Kondli Gharoli (Mayur Vihar

Phase-III), Delhi, allotted by the respondent/DDA to the petitioner in the

year 1990 on hire purchase basis.

2. It is pertinent to note that this is the second round of litigation

initiated by the petitioner for seeking the same reliefs. The earlier writ

petition filed by the petitioner registered as WP(C)No.11299/2009

entitled "Pitamber Dutt vs. Delhi Development Authority", was disposed of

vide order dated 10.3.2011 (Annexure P-14) in the following manner :

"1. The additional affidavit of the DDA is taken on record. A copy thereof has been given to counsel for the Petitioner.

2. There are two sets of calculations, one given by the DDA and other by the Petitioner. These obviously do not tally.

3. It is not possible for this Court to determine the correctness of either of the calculations under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, it is directed that the Chief Financial Officer of the DDA will examine the respective claims and also give the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard on 18th April 2011 at 3.00 pm. He will communicate to the Petitioner the decision of the DDA within a further period of four weeks thereafter. If the amount, if any, as determined to be payable by the DDA is paid by the Petitioner within the time granted by the DDA for that purpose, an NOC will thereafter be issued by the DDA to the Petitioner.

4. The writ petition is disposed of."

3. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to

the aforesaid order dated 10.3.2011, the petitioner appeared before the

Financial Advisor (Housing), DDA along with his representation dated

18.4.2011 (wrongly typed out as dated 18.4.2010) (Annexure P-15) and

explained his case. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the aforesaid

hearing, he received a letter dated 19.5.2011 from the respondent/DDA

informing him that his request for refund, as set out in para 8 of the

representation dated 18.4.2011, could not be acceded to but there was no

discussion of the calculations submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the

present petition has been filed by the petitioner, yet again calling upon the

Court to determine the correctness of the calculations submitted by him. As

noted above, similar relief, as sought in the present petition, was prayed for

by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition, but the same was turned down

vide order dated 10.3.2011, with the observation that it is not possible for

the Court to determine the correctness of either of the calculations

submitted by the parties under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The

position remains the same even today.

4. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the Chief

Financial Officer of the respondent/DDA did not examine and specifically deal

with the calculations submitted by him, and thus did not really comply with

the aforesaid order dated 10.3.2011 passed in the earlier writ petition, it

was for the petitioner to have filed a contempt petition against the

respondent/DDA. However, a second round of proceedings for the same

relief could not have been initiated by the petitioner under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

5. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that a perusal of the

letter dated 19.5.2011 addressed by the respondent/DDA to the petitioner

shows that the same is quite ambiguous as to the outcome of the meeting

held on 18.4.2011 in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, DDA, it is

deemed appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition in limine with

directions to respondent/DDA to grant a fresh hearing to the petitioner

before the aforesaid Officer. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to appear

once again before the Chief Financial Officer of the respondent/DDA on

13.2.2012 at 3.00 P.M. The Chief Financial Officer of the respondent/DDA

shall consider the representation dated 18.4.2011 (Annexure P-15)

submitted by the petitioner and thereafter take a decision wherein the

calculations as set out in the said representation shall be discussed, and if

the same are found to be unacceptable for any reason, reasons therefor

shall be indicated. In case any minutes of the meeting are drawn by the

respondent/DDA, then they shall be got duly signed from the petitioner on

the very same day. The decision taken by the respondent/DDA, shall be

communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date

of conclusion of submissions.

6. The petition is disposed of.

                                                                (HIMA KOHLI)
JANUARY 16, 2012                                                   JUDGE
sk