[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Sufyan Rajiv Ratan Awas Resident ... vs The Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement ... on 24 March, 2026
$~79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 24.03.2026
+ LPA 151/2026
SUFYAN RAJIV RATAN AWAS RESIDENT WELFARE
ASSOCIATION .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anubhav Dubey & Mr. Saket
Gogia, Advocates.
versus
THE DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD
(DUSIB)AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Richa
Dhawan & Ms. Yashita Jain,
Advocates for R-1/DUSIB.
Mr. Raghvindra Upadhyay, Panel
Counsel with Ms. Purnima Jain & Mr.
Madhur, Advocates for R-2/GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.
4. By instituting the proceedings of this intra court Appeal, the
Appellant, which claims itself to be a Resident Welfare Society, assails the
Order dated 09.02.2026 ("Impugned Order") passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No.14986/2022 ("Writ Petition"), whereby the Writ
Petition has been disposed of with certain observations.
5. The Writ Petition was filed by the Appellant-Society primarily with
two prayers, namely,
i. An appropriate direction be issued to the Respondents to transfer
the maintenance and upkeep functions of the Appellant-Society as
also the operation of corpus fund namely "DUSIB Estate
Management Fund" to the Appellant; and
ii. A direction be issued to the Respondents directing to hand over
the audited accounts of entire income-expenditure of the
maintenance of the Society.
6. The learned Single Judge, while passing the Impugned Order, noticed
certain extracts from the counter affidavit filed in the proceedings of the
Writ Petition by Respondent No.1. It has been noticed in the Impugned
Order that as per the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by
Respondent No.1, the total income received from the flat owners was
₹2,55,00,000/- in a period of five years, however, the expenditure incurred
was ₹3,60,00,000/-. The learned Single Judge has also noticed that as per the
averments of Respondent No.1, the expenditure incurred on civil work was
to the tune of ₹1,80,00,000/-, whereas the expenditure incurred on
electrical/horticulture work was also to the extent of ₹1,80,00,000/-. The
total expenditure as averred by Respondent No.1, which has been noticed in
the Impugned Order, is, thus, ₹3,60,00,000/- as against the receipt of the
sum of only ₹2,55,00,000/-.
7. Noticing the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has observed that
according to Respondent No.1, it has spent more amount than the amount
which was collected from the flat owners. It has further been observed by
the learned Single Judge that if the Appellant has any grievance with respect
to the calculation placed on record by the Respondent, the remedy would lie
elsewhere. The learned Single Judge has further proceeded to state in the
Impugned Order that calculation exercise cannot be conducted in a writ
jurisdiction and, accordingly, the Writ Petition has been disposed of granting
the aforesaid liberty.
8. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention to
certain replies given by Respondent No.1 under the 'Right to Information
Act, 2005'. The said reply was given vide letter dated 11.06.2021. The said
letter contains a list of works done by Respondent No.1, which is appended
to the said letter.
9. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that
the list of works done by Respondent No.1 does not contain any work
related to horticulture, whereas in the counter affidavit filed before the
learned Single Judge, Respondent No.1 had stated that ₹1,80,00,000/- have
been spent on electrical/horticulture work. Thus, the figure relating to the
money spent by Respondent No.1 is being disputed by the learned Counsel
for the Appellant.
10. We are of the opinion that such disputed questions of fact cannot be
gone into by a Writ Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has
rightly observed that if there is any discrepancy according to the Appellant
in the amount spent or even in the amount received, the remedy lies
elsewhere.
11. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has also drawn our attention to
a Notification dated 11.12.2017 ("Notification") issued by the Department
of Urban Development, Government of NCT of Delhi which embodies the
Delhi Slum and Jhuggi Jhopri Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015.
Referring to Clause 5 (viii) & (ix), it has been stated by the learned Counsel
for the Appellant that as per the said prescription, after five years, the
maintenance is to be transferred to the Residents Welfare Association and,
therefore, since the Appellant-Society is registered as a Society and is
competent to assume the functions of maintenance of the flats, in terms of
the said provisions, maintenance ought to be handed over to the Appellant.
12. As per Clause 5 (ix) of the Notification, the Delhi Urban Shelter
Improvement Board may also give grant-in-aid to the Residents Welfare
Association/Registered Societies depending upon the requirement of the
works to be done.
13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we dispose of this Appeal,
without interfering in the Impugned Order passed by the learned Single
Judge, which is under challenge herein, with the liberty to the Appellant to
approach the appropriate authority of DUSIB by way of making a
representation with a prayer to transfer the maintenance to the Appellant-
Society. The representation to be made under this order may contain the
objections relating to the money said to have been spent by DUSIB for
horticulture work as disclosed by Respondent No.1 in the counter affidavit
filed before the learned Single Judge. The representation may also contain a
prayer for release of grant-in-aid in accordance with the extant policy of
DUSIB in light of Clause 5 (ix) of the Policy, as aforesaid.
14. If any such representation is made, the same shall be considered and
decided by the competent authority of DUSIB within a period of eight
weeks from the date any such representation is received. The representation
shall be decided strictly in accordance with law and the decision taken
thereof shall also be communicated to the Appellant-Society.
15. We further direct that in case the Appellant-Society is eligible for
receiving any grant-in-aid amount in terms of Clause 5 (ix) of the Policy as
aforesaid, the same shall also be released to the Appellant-Society.
16. The Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
TEJAS KARIA, J
MARCH 24, 2026
ab
