DOODH NATH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. RAKESH Mittal appears on behalf of counsel for the respondent and seeks an adjournment. Adjournment is opposed by the counsel for the petitioner. On 6th October, 2006, respondent was directed to file the counter affidavit within four weeks which was not filed and on 1st March, 2007 last opportunity was granted to the respondent to file the counter affidavit within four weeks. Despite the final opportunity given on 1st March, 2007 again the counter affidavit was not filed, therefore, on 25th July, 2007, the cost of Rs. 3,500/-was imposed on the respondent and time was given to file the counter affidavit on or before 17th August, 2007 and the matter was adjourned to 6th December, 2007. On that date, the matter was adjourned on the personal difficulty of the counsel and thereafter the matter is listed today. Perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent also reveals that though the counter affidavit stipulates that a copy of the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 16th February, 2005 is annexed, however, no copy of demand-cum-allotment letter has been filed with the counter affidavit. In the facts and circumstances, the request of the respondent for adjournment is declined.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present petition seeking allotment of the flat No. 310, Sector 16-B, Pocket-B, Category B, First Floor, Dwarka, New Delhi on the ground that the petitioner had applied for a flat under Janta Housing registration Scheme 1996 on 27th February, 1996 and had deposited a bank draft of Rs. 5,000/ -. The petitioner averred that he received a letter dated 5th June, 2003 demanding certain documents including ration card which were submitted by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the draw of lots was held on 15th october, 2004, however, petitioner did not receive any demand-cum-allotment letter nor is he aware of any flat being allotted to him. According to the petitioner, he received a show cause notice dated 28th December, 2005 asking him to show cause as to why his allotment be not cancelled. The petitioner replied to the said letter by reply dated 6th January, 2006 which was also duly acknowledged by the respondent as an acknowledgment of the reply to show cause is filed by the petitioner as Annexure 8. In his reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner had categorically asserted that he had not received any letter dated 16th February, 2005. Regarding the documents stipulated in the show cause notice, it was asserted that the documents had already been deposited. In the circumstances, the petitioner sought an inquiry as to how the allotment letter was not sent to the petitioner. The petitioner also sought that the amount which is to be deposited by the petitioner be also intimated to him so that the amount could be deposited by the petitioner for allotment of the flat to him.

(3.) THE plea of the petitioner is that despite the reply to show cause notice asking the respondent to make an inquiry into as to why the allotment letter was not send to him, neither the copy of the allotment letter was sent to him nor the proof of sending the letter was given to him and his allotment has been cancelled mechanically by a cyclostyled cancellation letter dated 17th March, 2006. The petitioner also contended that no personal hearing was granted to him and his allotment has been cancelled arbitrarily, mechanically and without application of mind. On failure of the respondent to allot a flat to him, the present petition has been filed.