W.P.(C) 9490/2007 Page 1 of 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9490/2007 & CM No.17866/2007 Date of decision : 2.3.2009 IN THE MATTER OF : # KAPTAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Sanat Kumar with Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advs. ! versus $ D.D.A. ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Amiet Andley, Adv. ^ CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. HIMA KOHLI, J. ( ORAL ) 1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of letter dated 3.12.2007 issued by the Assistant Director (Housing) LIG of the respondent/DDA. The said letter addressed to the petitioner informed him that his case for condonation W.P.(C) 9490/2007 Page 2 of 6 of delay in making payment of amounts demanded by the respondent, vide demand-cum-allotment letter dated 30.4.2003-5.5.2003 in respect of an LIG flat allotted to the petitioner at Dwarka under a Special Housing Registration Scheme floated by the respondent for SC/ST persons, was examined as per order dated 30.7.2007 passed in WP(C)No.15820/2006, but the case of the petitioner was found not covered under the policy. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide order dated 30.7.2007, a direction was issued to the respondent/DDA to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the policy dated 1.6.2000 modified on 31.8.2001 and 7.6.2005 and take a decision within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing of the order. As per the aforesaid modified policy, in case there is a delay in making payment upto three years in deserving cases, the Vice Chairman of DDA can condone the delay. 3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the letter dated 3.12.2007 communicated by the respondent to the petitioner is non-speaking and the letter does not reveal the basis for rejecting the case of the petitioner. His other grievance is that vide order dated 30.7.2007, the Vice Chairman of the DDA, who is authorized to condone the delay upto 3 years in deserving cases, was W.P.(C) 9490/2007 Page 3 of 6 required to consider the case of the petitioner. However, perusal of the letter dated 3.12.2007 communicated by the Assistant Director (Housing), LIG, DDA to the petitioner does not indicate that the order has been passed by the Vice Chairman, DDA. 4. Counsel for the respondent/DDA has produced the original records of the case, perusal of which shows that pursuant to the order dated 30.7.2007, the file was put up by the dealing assistant to the Commissioner (Housing), vide note dated 17.9.2007. The Commissioner (Housing) vide her noting dated 25.9.2007 placed the matter before the Vice Chairman, DDA, whereafter the Office of the Vice Chairman called upon the Commissioner (Housing) to call the allottee in question for a hearing. 5. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was called for a hearing by the Commissioner (Housing) which he duly attended, but thereafter, the petitioner did not hear from the respondent/DDA till the impugned order dated 3.12.2007 was communicated to him. The noting of the Commissioner (Housing),DDA dated 13.11.2007 as contained in the file, is reproduced herein below : “Details of the case are at page 12/N. The case was discussed with VC. I have called the allottee to enquire from him the reasons for delay. However, allottee has not given any valid reason for such a long W.P.(C) 9490/2007 Page 4 of 6 delay. He informed the undersigned that due to financial crises, he could not deposit the demanded amount. Present case is not covered under the policy of restoration. Submitted for orders. Sd/- (Asma Manzar) Commissioner (Housing) 13.11.2007” 6. The aforesaid note dated 13.11.2007 was submitted to the Principal Commissioner, who in turn forwarded the file to the Vice Chairman, DDA. The only observation made by the Vice Chairman on 17.11.2007 in noting file is, “seen”. Counsel for the respondent states that the policy for restoration of cancelled DDA flats requires the Vice Chairman, DDA only to approve restoration for delays upto three years. Hence it is stated that the Competent Authority was not required to pass any order himself, but only to “approve” the restoration if any made in cases of delay upto three years. 7. The aforesaid submission of the counsel for the respondent is devoid of merits. The observation made by the Vice Chairman, DDA in the noting file can by no stretch of imagination be called an order of approval, in terms of the policy. The policy formulated by the respondent/DDA required the Vice Chairman to approve deserving W.P.(C) 9490/2007 Page 5 of 6 cases for restoration. It was, therefore, not for the Commissioner (Housing) alone to apply her mind, but for the Vice Chairman, DDA also to consider the case of the petitioner on merits and express an opinion, either accepting or rejecting the proposal put up to him. The word “seen” cannot be treated as sufficient compliance of the Policy, as it does not fit either in the former, or the latter category of orders. In judicial parlance, this word can be equated with the term, “heard”, which would by itself not convey any decision either ways. 8. It therefore has to be held that the noting file of the respondent/DDA does not indicate application of mind on the part of the respondent/DDA in terms of the order dated 30.7.2007. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 3.12.2007 rejecting the case of the petitioner for condonation of delay in making the payment has to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 3.12.2007 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent/DDA to re-consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 30.7.2007, and the Policy dated 1.6.2000, modified on 31.8.2001 & 7.6.2005 within four weeks from today. The respondent shall pass a speaking order under written intimation to the petitioner within the aforesaid time. In case the grievance of the petitioner still survives, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek his remedies as may be available to him in law. W.P.(C) 9490/2007 Page 6 of 6 9. It is further directed that the order dated 18.12.2007 shall continue to operate in favour of the petitioner for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the speaking order, to be passed by the respondent, as directed herein above. 10. The writ petition is disposed of along with the pending application. HIMA KOHLI,J MARCH 02, 2009 sk/rkb