Delhi High Court
Ravinder Kaur vs Balvinder Kumar (Vice Chairman) & ... on 21 April, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 21st April, 2015
+ CONT.CAS(C) 236/2015
RAVINDER KAUR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. N. Kinra, Adv.
Versus
BALVINDER KUMAR (VICE CHAIRMAN)
& ANR. ...... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Dhanesh Relan,
Standing Counsel with Mr. Arush
Bhandari, Adv. for Respondent/DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions
thereby to initiate contempt proceedings in respect of judgement
dated 05.04.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3570/2010
for wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents.
2. I note, vide the aforesaid order mandamus was issued to the
respondents/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allot a MIG
Flat to the petitioner by issuing fresh demand-cum-allotment letter
at the same cost at which payment was raised on others for the flats
allotted at the draw of lots held on 31.03.2004. The said directions
were to be complied with within six weeks from said date.
3. It was further clarified that on petitioner's making payment
of the demand within the time stipulated in the demand-cum-
allotment letter, possession of the flat shall be handed over to the
petitioner within two weeks.
4. Since then more than two years have been passed. The
respondents neither complied with the order dated 05.04.2013 nor
challenged the same before the High Court, thus, the respondents
have accepted the aforesaid order. Despite, took no steps for
compliance of the same.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on
instructions, submits that the petitioner had applied in the Scheme
of 1979. The said Scheme had closed long back and the DDA has
to find out the left out flats or available flats in the other parts of
Delhi and thereafter, a mini draw will be held to allot the flat in
favour of the petitioner, which will take some more time.
6. On asking by the Court as to how much time will be needed,
learned standing counsel submits that as per instructions, the DDA
need six months time for the same.
7. As stated by counsel for the respondents that on 10.04.2015,
a decision has been taken by the respondents not to challenge the
said order, therefore, six months further time will be required to
comply with the order dated 05.04.2013.
8. Admittedly, the respondents/DDA has taken the said decision
in complete two years and the petitioner was constrained to file the
present contempt petition to get the order dated 05.04.2013
implemented.
9. In view of the above recorded submissions, I direct the
respondents/DDA to allot a flat to the petitioner within three
months from today. By extending the time and constraining
petitioner to file the present petition, the respondents are liable to
pay costs. Hence, the respondents/DDA are directed to pay a sum
of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the petitioner as cost of the present
petition.
10. I make it clear that if the order dated 05.04.2013 is not
complied with within the stipulated time, the petitioner would be
entitled to another cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.
11. In view of the above noted facts, the present petition is
disposed of.
12. Consequently, the contempt notices issued against the
respondents stand discharged.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
APRIL 21, 2015
sb
