Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar vs The Commission (Housingh Lig), ... on 7 August, 2018
#60
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on:
07.08.2018
W.P.(C) 8260/2018
RAJ KUMAR .... Petitioner
versus
THE COMMISSION (HOUSINGH LIG), DDA
AND ANR. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankan Suri, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.31649/2018 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8260/2018
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, prays as follows:
"b) direct the respondents to cancel/withdraw the
cancellation letter dated 20.02.2004 and refund
letter dated 11.03.2004 whereby the respondents
had cancelled the allotment in favour of the
appellants.
c) direct the respondents to issue a fresh demand-
cum-allotment letter to the appellant for a flat in
the same location and of the same value as the
previously allotted flat."
2. A plain reading of prayer clause (b) extracted hereinabove, leaves
no manner of doubt that, the action of the DDA impugned in the present
proceedings, is in relation to a cancellation letter issued on 20.02.2004
and refund letter issued on 11.03.2004, whereby they had cancelled the
allotment of the subject flat, made in favour of the petitioner's deceased
mother.
3. Upon a perusal of the petition paper book, it emerges that the
petitioner had earlier instituted a consumer complaint being case
No.45/2012, titled as 'Sh. Raj Kumar vs. The Commissioner (Housing
LIG) & Anr." dated 03.02.2012, before the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum-II, New Delhi-110016 (hereinafter referred to as
'Consumer Court'), which was rejected by the judicial authority vide
order dated 15.05.2017, on the solitary ground that the same is "highly
time barred".
4. It is an admitted position that, the said order dated 15.05.2017 of
the Consumer Court was carried in the appeal before the State
Commission, Delhi in First Appeal No.337/2017, titled as 'Sh. Raj
Kumar vs. The Commissioner (Housing LIG) & Anr." and was dismissed
by the State Commission vide order dated 08.11.2017, with an
observation that, the petitioner's case "has been rightly dismissed on the
point of limitation".
5. The said order dated 08.11.2017 has not been carried in an appeal
before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and has
since attained finality.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would state
that, even after the issuance of the letters impugned in the present
petition, he has addressed communications to the DDA and has received
reply thereto, and in view of the foregoing, the present petition is within
time.
7. I do not agree with the submission made on behalf of the
petitioner.
8. In the present case, it is an admitted position that, prayer clause
(B), which is the principal prayer, relates back to the year 2004, which is
14 years prior to the institution of the writ petition.
9. It is further observed that, there is no cogent explanation for the
delay incurred on behalf of the petitioner. The plea urged on behalf of
the petitioner, that the delay has been occasioned on account of the
repeated representations made by him to the respondents and their replies
thereto, is not tenable, inasmuch as, repeated representations cannot
entitle a party to agitate a dead or stale claim.
10. It is trite to state that this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India does not come to aid of a litigant who
awakes from deep slumber belatedly at the eleventh hour. [Ref:
Ziauddin Hassan vs. University of Delhi & Ors. in LPA No.737/2017]
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is
dismissed since the same is hopelessly barred by delay and latches.
12. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 07, 2018
as
