46. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Delivered on: 26.05.2010 + W.P.(C) 154/2009 MOHINI ARORA ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. N. Kinra, Versus D.D.A. ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL) 1. Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties, writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. 2. Brief facts of the case, as set out in the present petition, are that the husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the original applicant”) booked an MIG flat in the year 1979 with the DDA. He informed the DDA by a communication dated 25.9.1987, purported to have been received by the DDA, that he had shifted his residence to B-5/414, Sector 3, Rohini, Delhi. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the information having been supplied to the DDA by the original applicant, DDA issued the demand-cum-allotment letter in favour of the original applicant with block dates 30.12.2002 – 7.1.2003 at the old address. Counsel further submits that as the petitioner did not receive the demand-cum-allotment letter. Petitioner also addressed a communication to the Deputy Director (MIG) on 2.3.2006 bringing to his notice that her husband had expired on 29.11.2005 and she also informed the DDA that the she had visited the office of the DDA several times in order to ascertain the exact position about the draw of lot, but no satisfactory response was received. Admittedly, this letter was received by the DDA. Counsel also submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the Wrong Address of Policy of DDA. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent DDA submits that she does not wish to file any counter affidavit and wishes to rely on the original record. 5. Original record has been produced in Court today. While relying on the original record of the DDA, counsel for the respondent submits that the communication dated 25.9.1987 was not received by the DDA and DDA dispatched the demand-cum-allotment letter at the address available in the record of the DDA. The original Transit Challan Register has also been produced in Court, which shows that there are large numbers of interpolation in the Register. Original record has been perused by the Court, which does not show that the communication dated 25.9.1987 was ever received by the DDA. In the absence of any material on record to show that the communication dated 25.9.1987 was received by the DDA, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. It may also be noticed that in all the subsequent letters addressed by the petitioner to the DDA there is no mention about the communication dated 25.9.1987, which also casts a doubt as to whether the aforesaid communication was ever sent to the DDA by the petitioner. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Petition stands dismissed. CM NO.318/2009 (STAY). 6. Dismissed in view of the orders passed in the writ petition. G.S. SISTANI, J. May 26, 2010 'msr’