PHOOL CHAND SARDANA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 12th December, 1985 (annexure H to the writ petition) vide which respondent No. 1 Delhi Development Authority has decided to withdraw the offer made to the petitioner in the letter dated 26th November, 1985 (annexure G to the writ petition) according to which letter shop No. 31, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi was allotted to the petitioner in lieu of shop No. 16, Madipur Janta Scheme, and also a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to deliver the possession of shop No. 31, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi to the petitioner in accordance with he aforementioned letter of 26th November, 1985.

(2.) The brief relevant facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner's shop bearing municipal No. A-11/127, Moti Nagar, New Delhi where he was carrying on business and earning his livelihood was demolished in 1976 by respondent No. 1 Delhi Development Authority and at the time of demolition of the shop the petitioner was assured by the respondent No. 1 Delhi Development Authority that he would be allotted alternative shop in lieu of the demolished shop of Moti Nagar in order to earn his livelihood and carry on his business as usual. Subsequently he was allotted shop No. 16, Madipur Fanta Scheme vide letter dated 26th October, 1979 (annexure A to the writ petition) and he was asked to comply with certain terms and conditions which were duly complied with by the petitioner. In spite of various representations made to the respondent No. 1 Delhi Development Authority the petitioner was not given the possession of the shop No. 16, Madipur Janta Scheme and in fact he was made to run from piller to post for years together and ultimately the petitioner was asked to reach at the site to take possession of shop No. 16, Madipur Janta Scheme allotted to him but to his surprise no such shop existed at the site. In these circumstances, the petitioner had to apply for an alternative shop and again on persistent efforts and representations to the respondent No. 1 Delhi Development Authority the petitioner was allotted shop No. 31, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi which was lying vacant vide annexure G to the writ petition. Relevant portion of this letter is reproduced below :

(3.) In spite of this letter, however, no possession was given to the petitioner nor any terms and conditions were communicated. While he was waiting For the terms and conditions, price and the delivery of possession, the petitioner received another letter dated 12th December. 1985 (annexure H to the writ petition) whereby the respondent No. 1 Delhi Development Authority decided to withdraw the offer made to the petitioner in the letter of 26th November, 1985, aforementioned, and he was asked to give a fresh consent for change in West/ North Delhi. The allotment made to the petitioner vide annexure G was withdrawn apparently unilaterally by the respondent No. 1 Delhi Development Authority. Being aggrieved against this letter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and has challenged this letter of 12th December, 1985 on the ground that the allotment once, made with respect of shop No. 31, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, Delhi vide letter 26th November, 1985 cannot arbitrarily and unilaterally be withdrawn by respondent No. 1 Delhi Development Authority as the respondent No. 1 being the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is expected to act fairly and justly.