Gurdeep Khera vs Delhi Development Authority
2013 Latest Caselaw 5159 Del

$~5
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Decided on: 11th November, 2013
+     W.P.(C) 3236/2013
      GURDEEP KHERA                                         ..... Petitioner
                  Through:           Mr. Ashish Agarwal, Advocate with
                                     Ms. Priyanka Marwah, Advocate with
                                     Petitioner in person.

                           Versus

      DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                  ..... Respondent
                   Through: Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL

                                JUDGMENT

G.P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL)

1. In the year 1979, the Petitioner applied for an MIG flat. Since the name of the Petitioner was found missing from the priority list and the Petitioner was unaware of the allotment made to her, she (the Petitioner) wrote a letter dated 22.04.2003 to the DDA. During the period 2006- 2010, the Petitioner had been approaching the various authorities including the Deputy Director (Vigilance), Director (Housing), Commissioner (Housing) and the Lt. Governor of Delhi, who is the Chairman of the DDA. Ultimately, vide letter dated 05.03.2010, the DDA required the Petitioner to produce some documents to verify her genuineness.

2. The Petitioner alleges that she visited the office of the DDA and contacted one Sewa Ram, Clerk in the concerned department. He refused

to disclose the status of her file and refused to give any satisfactory reply. By a letter dated 14.06.2012, the Petitioner brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Housing) the ill-intention of the earlier stated Sewa Ram and ultimately in November, 2012, the Petitioner was issued a demand notice for the cost of the flat as on the date of allotment, that is, May, 2003. The allotment letter dated 02.11.2012 was issued requiring the Petitioner to deposit a sum of `15,30,430/-. Through RTI query, the Petitioner obtained information as to the cost of the allotment when it was informed to her that she had been charged interest @ 7% per annum from May, 2003 to August, 2012, amounting to `5,88,767/-.

3. The only plea raised by the Petitioner is that since she was deprived of the flat all these years without any fault of her, she cannot be further burdened with the amount of interest charged thereon. The Petitioner also had to pay rent of the residential accommodation occupied by her during all these years which was much more than the interest, if any, earned by her on the amount.

4. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted by the DDA that the allotment letter could not be issued because of fault of the DDA. It is stated that interest @ 7% per annum has been charged as per the policy of the DDA.

5. It is important to note that atleast since the year 2006, the Petitioner had been regularly approaching the DDA and inquiring about the status of the flat allotted to her. Not only the Petitioner was denied the allotment even after the year 2006 but she has also been made to pay interest.

6. The instant case is covered by a judgment of this Court in Smt. Kamlesh v. Delhi Development Authority, W.P.(C) No.5228/2006 decided on

20.07.2010, where this Court held that when the DDA has admitted its own fault in delaying the handing over of possession of kiosk, the allottee cannot be made liable to pay interest. Para 8 and 9 of the judgment are extracted hereunder:-

"8. The internal notings of the DDA with regard to placement of Kiosk in question as well as the photographs on record would show that the Kiosk cannot be properly utilised by the allottee and the said allotment, by no means, can be taken to be a proper allotment by DDA to its user. The counsel appearing on behalf of the DDA has neither placed on record nor shown at the time of hearing any policy of the DDA to chargeinterest from the allottee for its own fault. It shall be significant to mention that the DDA has admitted its own fault in delaying the handing over of possession of the Kiosk in question to the allottee in the revised demand letter dated 29.08.2006 which is at page 33 of the paper book. This court is of the considered opinion that the demand of interest on the cost of Kiosk by the DDA for its own fault is most arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified and cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. There cannot be any policy of the State instrumentality to charge interest from the consumer for its own fault.

9. It is quite shocking and painful to note that the DDA has taken more than 20 years in issuing demand letter in respect of a Kiosk that was allotted to the deceased husband of the petitioner way back in 1986. The DDA is a State functionary and it must come out of the cobwebs and should stop functioning in a despotic manner as it has been done by it in the present case. The petitioner, being the widow of the deceased allottee, has to run from pillar to post for getting possession of the Kiosk that was allotted by the DDA to her deceased husband about 25 years ago but till date she has not been able to get its possession from the DDA."

7. The learned counsel for the DDA urges that interest @ 7% per annum has been charged only as per the policy of the DDA. The policy of the DDA was never placed on record by the Respondent. In such circumstances, I

would refrain from commenting anything about the policy of the DDA in this writ petition.

8. Relying on the judgment in Smt. Kamlesh, the writ petition is allowed.

The DDA is directed not to charge any interest from the Petitioner and to issue a fresh demand letter within a period of six weeks from today, after adjusting a sum of `9,30,000/- already deposited by the Petitioner with the DDA.

9. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.

10. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE

NOVEMBER 11, 2013 vk