NITIN KATARIA Vs. D.D.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . With the consent of counsel for the parties, writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as set out in the present petition, are that the petitioner had booked a MIG flat in the year 2006. Petitioner was allotted a flat bearing no. 18, Block M -2, Pocket 4, Sector A -9, Narela, vide letter dated 5.3.2007. As per the demand -cum -allotment letter, a copy of which has been placed on record, petitioner was to deposit a sum of Rs. 11,68,737/ - by 31.3.2007 and thereafter a sum of Rs. 12,11,964/ - with interest upto 1.9.2007. On 3.9.2007, petitioner received a letter from the SBI that the challans had not been cleared due to shortfall in the amount. The petitioner is stated to have cleared the shortfall in the sum of Rs. 5500/ - on 25.10.2007. The petitioner was, in the meanwhile, asked by the DDA to obtain a certificate of clearance from the Bank to show that petitioner had deposited the full payment of Rs. 12,12,000/ -. Petitioner obtained the necessary certificate from the bank on 16.11.2007 and submitted the same to the DDA. The case of the petitioner is that the amounts were deposited by him from time to time by means of demand drafts, which were issued by the State Bank of India in favour of the Delhi Development Authority on the following dates:

(6.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that taking into consideration the peculiar facts of this case and the bona fide mistake of the petitioner as also the bank, it was a fit case for the DDA to have applied its policy dated 1.6.2000 and should have condoned the delay in receiving the payment, more particularly, when the petitioner had deposited the entire payment with the Bank except Rs. 5500/ -.