ASHOK KUMAR DEWAN Vs. LT GOVERNOR DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot an MIG flat bearing No.209, Sector 24, Pocket-24, Second floor, Rohini, to the petitioner. Petitioner also seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 28.2.1995'cancelling the allotment of the flat

(2.) The petitioner applied for allotment of a flat under the 4th New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979. The petitioner deposited Rs',4',500/ and he was registered at No.39018 dated 18.6.1980. Petitioner in the event was allotted flat No.209, Sector 24, Pocket 24 in the draw of lots held on 2.2.1994. As per the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 23.5.1994/26.5.1994, petitioner was required to pay the amount of Rs.2,18,018.32/- by 25.6.1994 and in any case latest by 24.8.1994. The petitioner did not comply with the terms and conditions of allotment and deposit any further amount. He even failed to furnish the required documents. As per the allotment-cum-demand letter in case the payment was not made within the stipulated period, the allotment shall automatically stand terminated without further notice.

(3.) Petitioner's grievance is that it received the show cause notice dated 10.1.1995 on 3.2.1995. Show cause notice required the petitioner to produce, within 15 days, the required documents as per the demand-cum-allotment letter and also to furnish evidence of having made the .payment of demanded amount, failing which the allotment of flat was to be cancelled without any further notice and the amount of registration after deducting the cancellation charges would be refunded. Petitioner's case is that he received the aforesaid letter on 3.2.1995 I.e. much after the 15 days period mentioned therein. Respondents on the other hand contend that the letter was duly despatched properly addressed by post. Petitioner was directed vide order dated 22.12.1999, to obtain the certificate from postal department showing the date on which the letter dated 10.1.1995 was served on him. Petitioner has failed to do so. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been giving him instructions and he has not produced even the original envelope till date. Postal stamp on Photo copy of envelope on record is illegible and does not help the matter any further. Petitioner con receipt of notice sent a reply on '21.2.1995' (page 24 of the paper book) wherein he took the plea that the said notice was received on 3.2.1995. Petitioner stated that as it was received late he could not present himself along with the factual records and reasons for delay in depositing the demanded amount. Petitioner requested for another date for submitting the reply. Apart from the fact that petitioner has failed to produce the original envelope and/or the certificate from postal authorities, this aspect need not detain us any further as the petitioner has not claimed any payment or furnished any tenable cause for non-payment.