Delhi High Court
Parbati vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 March, 2018
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:12.3.2018
+ W.P. (C) 8959/2014
PARBATI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Nitin Jain, proxy for Mr.
Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate for DUSIB.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer made in the writ petition is as follows: -
"(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
(s) or order (s) or direction (s) to the Respondent to take
immediate and all necessary steps to allocate the plot in JJ
Camp, Bakkerwala, Delhi in the interest of justice;
(b) Pass any other order or direction to the Respondent to
pay the cost for lots harassment caused in the last 13 years by
the Petitioner due to the Respondent in the interest of justice."
2. This prayer is made in the background of the fact that the
petitioner and her husband's hutment was demolished. The hutment
was located in J.J. Camp, Income Tax Colony, Pitampura, New Delhi.
At the time of demolition of the hutment, a demolition slip dated
5.7.2002 was issued to the husband of the petitioner, namely, Mr.
Ramesh Chand S/o Mr. Sooha Lal. The petitioner seeks allotment of a
site under the relocation scheme for Bakkarwala Colony.
2.1 The petitioner says that a sum of Rs.7,000/- was deposited by
her husband on 19.12.2002. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the
challan/receipt of even date which is appended as Annexure P-2 to the
writ petition.
2.2 It is also the petitioner's case that despite several
representations having been made between 2.7.2003 to 23.9.2014, the
respondents have not deliberated upon them and/or conveyed to her or
her husband as to why she is ineligible. To be noted, the petitioner's
husband expired on 20.8.2005.
3. It is the say of the counsel for the petitioner that the only reason,
possibly, the petitioner and her husband would have been denied the
benefit of the relocation scheme was because the payment of
Rs.7,000/- had been delayed by a short period of time.
3.1 According to the petitioner, Rs.7000/- was to be deposited on
the day of the demolition and because the petitioner and her husband
did not have the requisite funds, the amount could be paid, as
indicated above, only on 19.12.2002.
4. Upon issuance of notice, respondent no.1 has filed an affidavit.
There are two grounds taken by respondent no.1 to resist the petition.
One, that there is a delay of nearly thirteen years in approaching the
Court as the petitioner and her husband were removed from the
subject site in 2002. Second, the demolition slip itself indicated that
the petitioner and her husband were ineligible for relocation to another
site.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records, according to me, the reasons given by the respondents cannot
be sustained. Firstly, the fact of the matter is that facially the
petitioner's husband, at the relevant time, appears to have done
whatever was required within the shortest possible time. Secondly,
while the demolition slip indicated that the petitioner was not eligible,
the reasons as to why the petitioner was not eligible were not
articulated. It is the petitioner's educated guess that the petitioner and
her husband were considered ineligible only because there was a delay
in depositing Rs.7,000/- which, apparently, is not the reason as the
demolition slip does not advert to this aspect of the matter. Thirdly,
the petitioner wrote, for the first time, to the respondents on 2.7.2003
and thereafter, on several occasions. There was no response to the
representations of the petitioner.
5. In these circumstances, I am inclined to direct the respondents
to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh for allocation of a site in
the background of the aforesaid facts. In case, the scheme adverted to
in the petition stands closed, then the respondents will consider the
case of the petitioner for allotment at another site under any of the
subsisting schemes given the facts and circumstances obtaining in the
present case. A speaking order be passed by respondent no.1, within
six weeks from today.
6. The writ Petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
7. Renotify the matter for compliance on 29.5.2018.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 12, 2018/vikas/
