41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17697/2006 % Date of decision : 16th April, 2009 RAGHUBIR SINGH ARORA ... Petitioner Through Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate. versus D.D.A. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Manoj K. Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R 1. The petitioner was registered under the NPR Scheme-1979 for allotment of a MIG flat. 2. As per the respondent-DDA, the petitioner was successful in draw of flats held on 1st June, 1987 and demand cum allotment letter dated 7th/ 15th July, 1987 was sent to the petitioner at 11/14 A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015. However, the said letter was received back undelivered with the remarks “left without address”. Thereafter the aforesaid demand cum allotment letter was sent to the petitioner at his occupational address i.e. Poonam Garments, Ram Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031, but neither the said letter was received back as undelivered nor there was any response from the petitioner. It is stated that the allotment was cancelled on the ground of non- payment. 3. Subsequently, the respondent-DDA as per policy decision decided to charge cancellation charges, if the original allotment was not acceptable or on non-payment of the demand to continue with the registration under NPR Scheme -1979 and for being eligible for the subsequent draw of lots for flats. Counsel for the respondent admits that no letter was written by the respondent-DDA informing the petitioner about the said policy decision and requirement to pay cancellation charges. Counsel for the respondent-DDA states that an advertisement was published in the newspaper, but DDA has not placed on record any such advertisement. In view of the penal consequences of the policy decision, individual notices in the case of defaulters should have been issued. Mere advertisement in newspaper may not be sufficient notice to individuals. Advertisement can be missed. It is apparent that initially registration of the petitioner was not cancelled for failure to pay demanded amount in 1987. DDA has continued to retain the registration amount. There is difference between cancellation of registration and cancellation of allotment. Cancellation of registration deprives a person from being eligible for allotment in future for all times to come. Cancellation of allotment results in cancellation of allotment of a particular flat. In these circumstances, cancellation of registration on basis of subsequent policy decision after 1988 for failure to pay cancellation amount without notice is not justified and is arbitrary. 4. The petitioner’s case was considered as a tail-end priority case and was allotted a flat in Dwarka in the computerized draw of flats held on 31st March, 2004 on cash down basis. However, DDA did not post the demand cum allotment letter, but later on issued a show cause notice asking why the allotment of flat made in the computerized draw of flats held on 31st March, 2004, be not cancelled. It is apparent that notice for show cause was wrongly issued admittedly as demand cum allotment letter after draw of lots in 2004 was never issued. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that DDA will include the name of the petitioner, in the next mini draw of lots for allotment of MIG flat. The respondent will be entitled to charge the rates as were prevailing after four months from the date when draw of lots was held on 31st March, 2004. In addition, the respondent will also be entitled to charge cancellation charges and interest thereon @ 15% per annum. DDA will be entitled to verify the source of payment and whether the petitioner fulfils the eligibility requirements as per the scheme and allotment Rules. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J. APRIL 16, 2009 NA/P 04 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3010/2008 HOTEL DILOMAT & ANR .... Petitioner Through Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Advocate. versus N.D.M.C. ..... Respondent Through Ms. Madhu Tewatia, Advocate with Ms. Sidhi Arora, Advocate for NDMC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 16.04.2009 1. The petitioner impugns order dated 9th April, 2008 issued under Section 327 and 331 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994. 2. The petitioner is running a hotel from 9, Sardar Patel Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. It is stated that as a result of order dated 9th April, 2008, issued by the respondent Council, they cannot operate and run restaurant in the said hotel. 3. A number of allegations have been made in the writ petition against the respondents. However, I need not deal with the said allegations as I feel that the writ petition can be disposed of and decided on short points. It is admitted by the respondents that order dated 9th April, 2008 was passed without issue of show cause notice and hearing the petitioner. In this connection, I may notice here that the respondent themselves have filed on record a license dated 25th June, 2008, granted to the petitioner under Section 331 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994. The petitioner, on the other hand, has filed another license with their rejoinder, dated 25th June, 2008. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that both the licenses are dated 25th June, 2008. It is stated that these two licenses enclosed with the rejoinder are identical to the licenses enclosed by the respondents as annexure R-5 and 6. The petitioner has all requisite licenses as are required to be obtained from the respondent Council. I need not examine and go into merit and demerits of allegations made by the petitioner and respondents. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner probably does not have requisite license from Delhi Police. But this fact is disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. Another contention raised by the respondents is that the licences issued to the petitioner relate to restaurants in enclosed areas. This again is disputed by the counsel for the petitioner and it is pointed out that licenses are issued for the premises and not for the specific areas. He has drawn my attention to the licenses and states that on the basis of similar licences, several other entertainment places are serving food and even preparing food in open area. 4. It cannot be disputed that the impugned order dated 9th April, 2008 is ………..nature and has adverse consequences on the petitioner. It is difficult to run a hotel without a restaurant. It is obvious in view of the order dated 9th April, 2008, the petitioner’s business and guests of the petitioner would have suffered extreme prejudice and harassment. In these circumstances, the respondent before issuing order dated 9th April, 2008 should have issued show cause notice and give an opportunity to the petitioner to present its point of view and explain their stand. In the present case, there is clearly a failure to comply with principal of natural justice. 5. In view of the above facts, order dated 9th April, 2008 is hereby quashed. Respondent Council will be at liberty to issue show cause notice, if required and after calling upon and hearing the petitioner, can pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. If any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, he will be at liberty to challenge the same. The petitioner stands disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA,J APRIL 16, 2009