SURENDER NATH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for calling the records of the respondents and for quashing the letter dated May 5, 1981, issued by the Deputy Director (H) I of the Delhi Development Authority respondent No. 2 whereby the allocation of the flat in question made in favour of the petitioner on May 15, 1980, has been cancelled and a writ of mandamus requiring the respondents to treat the allocation of the flat made in favour on the petitioner as valid and still in force and require the respondents to accept the necessary instalments in respect of the said flat without imposing any penalty.

(2.) . The facts giving rise to this particular petition, in brief, are that in response to the Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme 1977-78 the petitioner got himself registered under the said Scheme for allocation of a flat in Category III and vide letter dated May 15, 1980, the respondents informed the petitioner that he had been declared successful for the allocation of a flat in Category III type in Munirka Residential Self Financing Scheme on the ground floor in the draw of lots held on March 27, 1980. In the allotment letter he was informed that the total cost of the flat is about Rs.1,38,000.00 and he should pay Rs. 23,136.00 as the amount of first instalment within one month from the date of the issue of the said allotment letter. The said allotment letter was sent to the petitioner through registered post but the same was returned with the report of the postal authority as "unclaimed". It is the case of the petitioner that he generally was not available during the day time at his residential address at which the said registered letter was sent. The respondent again informed the petitioner vide letter dated June 16, 1980, that the letter of demand of first instalment had been received back as 'undelivered' and the date of issuance of letter for the purpose of calculating the period of one month for payment of instalment remains the same. As I he petitioner had received this particular letter sent by ordinary post after the expiry of the period of one month from the date of the issuance of the registered letter dated May 15, 1980, so the petitioner could not comply with the time limit for making the payment. Hence, he made a request vide letter dated June 26, 1980, that in future all such intimations regarding demand of instalments should be sent to him under certificate of posting as it was a serious matter that he could not receive the requisite intimation being sent by registered post and he prayed for extension of lime for depositing the first instalment. Ultimately the respondents extended the time till September 14, 1980, for depositing the first instalment plus the interest and the petitioner admittedly deposited Rs. 24,000.00 on September 13, 1980, vide challan No. 1205.

(3.) . It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No, 2 vide letter dated May 5, 1981, informed that the allotment of the said flat in his name has been cancelled due to non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions. The petitioner immediately sent a letter dated May II, 1981, that he had not violated any terms and conditions of the allotment letter and he had not received any intimation for deposit of any other instalment and he had already made a request in his earlier letter tnat he be sent all communications by ordinary post under postal certificate. As the petitioner did not hear anything in the matter he again made a representation on May 22, 1981, to the Vice Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority reiterating all these facts. According to the petitioner, he was being assured that his representation was being considered and he would be given necessary intimation but later on he learnt that the respondents were trying to allot the flat in question to some other person who was on the waiting list and hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. It may be mentioned that the petition also referred to the fact that certain draw of lots has already been made in respect of allocating servant quarters and car garages to the allottees of flats. He has also wanted an injunction restraining the respondents from making any further allotment of such garages and servant quarters without including the name of the petitioner as one of the eligible applicants.