AUTAR KRISHAN SHARMA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions are involved, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners are registrants in Self-Financing Registration Scheme No. 2. There are three petitioners in the first writ petition (C.W.P. No. 2337/82) and one petitioner in the second writ petition (C.W.P. No. 3711/82). The petitioners have deposited Rs. 10,000.00 each on various dates. The draw of allocation of flats was held on 6th July, 1982. The petitioners were interested in flats situated in East of Kailash. The lucky No. drawn was 135. There were 54 flats to be allocated. Out of these flats, 17 flats were allotted to those registered under Self-Financing Registration Scheme No. 1. 37 flats remained to be allocated in Self-Financing Registration Scheme No. 2 after meeting the requirements of the reserved categories. According to the petitioner, their random Nos. were 167, 169, 162 and 164. As per the Brochure, 25% of the flats were reserved for SC/ST registrants. Only one registrant was available from this reserved category. There were registrants in the Fourth Scheme belonging to the said reserved category. So, 12 flats were decided to be allotted to the registrants belonging to SC/ST in the Fourth Scheme. During -the pendency of the writ petition, four registrants of the Fourth Scheme belonging to this reserved category showed their disinterestedness and there remained only 8 registrants under the Fourth Scheme in respect of whom respondent's case is that as per the scheme of the brochure, they were entitled to allotment.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that all the four schemes are independent and if applications for reserved categories are not received, as per the percentage, then the flats are required to be offered to the persons registered under the non-reserved categories.