DDA Vs. SUNIL BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the respondent on admission.

(2.) REGISTRY has reported 121 days of delay in filing this revision petition by the petitioner for which a petition for condonation of delay has been filed. The reasons assigned therein are that after the certified copy of the impugned order was received on 17.9.2008, the file had to be processed at different levels by the Department of Delhi Development Authority and eventually a decision was taken to file a revision assailing the order of the State Commission. We are not oblivious that laxity on part of an applicant in taking recourse to the legal remedy cannot be overlooked but we are of the view that in case of a Government organization where the matter has to be examined at various levels, considerable time is obviously lost. Added to this, since we find that there is merit in the case of the petitioner which we shall discuss, we condone the delay.

(3.) ON a hire purchase basis, an LIG Flat was allotted to the respondent in the draw held on 11.2.2000 and a Demand -cum -Allotment letter was sent to him by the petitioner herein at the address furnished by him in his application. The said communication was, however, received back undelivered with an endorsement "incomplete address" made by the courier services. Thereafter, an advertisement was issued by the DDA in "Navbharat Times" on 20.2.2001 informing all the allottees who had failed to respond to the allotment letter to do the needful in the matter within 15 days of the publication, failing which allotment was to stand cancelled. As the respondent failed to respond to the publication of the notice in the newspaper, allotment was cancelled.