SATISH KUMAR KALRA Vs. D.D.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . With the consent of Counsel for the parties, present petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

(2.) PRESENT petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to allot an MIG flat to the petitioner, on the basis of the demand letter which was sent by DDA at Delhi in place of Meerut and then corrected after five months and sent again but without changing the date of payment.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he immediately sent a letter to the DDA on 5.3.2003 bringing to their notice that the demand letter was received by him on 17.2.2003 while the last date for making the payment wes mentioned as 3.10.2002. Having received no response from the respondent-DDA, petitioner addressed another communication dated 22.3.2003 to the respondent-DDA wherein it was reiterated that the demand letter was received by him on 17.2.2003, while the last date for making the payment was 3.10.2002. The petitioner requested the respondent - DDA to permit him to make the payment within three months of issuance of the demand letter, but received no response thereto. He also requested for hearing, which was not granted to him. He also brought to the notice of the respondent - DDA that he has to leave for Australia to sort out some personal problems of his son, which were likely to take some time and, thus, requested for a revised demand letter so as to enable him to make the payment before his departure. According to the petitioner, no reply was received to this communication as well. The petitioner then approached the office of the DDA on 21.8.2006 as well as attended public hearing on 12.10.2006. Counsel for petitioner has also drawn attention of the Court to page 21 of the paper book, which is the performa filled in by the petitioner on his 3rd personal visit to the office of the DDA. In this performa he noted "the letter of allotment was sent to me long after the date of acceptance had passed. This fact was brought to [notice of] your office. In response to my this letter, your office asked me to state the category and registration number. I replied, but did not receive any response. Date of hearing 26.4.2007." The petitioner thereafter yet again wrote to the respondent-DDA vide letter dated 24.6.2008. Counsel for petitioner submits that, thereafter, his client received a communication dated 8.7.2008 from the Assistant Director, AVAAS, calling upon the petitioner to produce the following documents and attend the office of Assistant Director on any Monday/Thursday between 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. :