CWP No.7533 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.7533 of 2007 Decided on : 04.11.2008 Vinay Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present:- Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes M. M. KUMAR J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing action of the respondents in canceling the initial allotment of the Flat in favour of the petitioner being totally illegal. A further prayer for issuance of directions to the respondents has been made for allotment of the Flat in Sector 4 & 5, Housing Board, Karnal. Facts in briefs necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that the Housing Board, Haryana, respondent No.2 invited applications for allotment of Flats in various districts of the State of Haryana which included Sector 4 & 5, Karnal. The petitioner had applied for Lower Income Group CWP No.7533 of 2007 -2- (LIG) Flats and submitted his application form duly filled in alongwith the Bank Daft of Rs.34,800/- dated 20.12.2004. A perusal of his application form shows that he has given two addresses, one for the correspondence and other his permanent address. Both the addresses are as under:- Correspondence Address Permanent Address Vinay, Vinay, EP-72, AK-20, Pathanwara, Shalimar Bagh, Sohna Distt., Delhi. Gurgaon. The application was duly accepted by the respondents and he succeeded in draw of lots. It is pertinent to mention that before the draw of lots, the temporary/correspondence address of the petitioner had changed and he remained sanguine to hear from the respondents at his permanent address regarding the fate of draw of lots. When he did not hear anything, he visited the office of the respondents at Panchkula, where he came to know that he had been successful in the draw of lots. However, on account of change of his temporary address, the letter had come back undelivered. On the inspection of the record, petitioner came to know that the show cause notice was sent to him on 26.09.2005 at his permanent address but his permanent address was incorrectly mentioned as A-20, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi instead of AK-20, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The show cause notice was also received back undelievered. The petitioner made a representation on 05.02.2007 (Annexure P-2) after apprising the respondents all the facts on 01.02.2007. He again sent a communication on 14.02.2007 under registered cover. The Housing Board sent a cheque to him on 25.04.2007 for a sum of Rs.31,320/- whereas he had deposited a sum of Rs.34,800/-. However, the CWP No.7533 of 2007 -3- petitioner did not encash the aforementioned cheque. He has also claimed that several Flats are available with the respondents. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 18.05.2007, the respondents were directed to keep one Flat reserved for the petitioner till the disposal of the petition. The respondents have taken the stand that in the brochure it has been clarified in categorical terms that the draw of lots was to take place within six months from the closing date of the scheme. It was also notified through the newspapers that the draw of lots was to be held on 26.06.2005. It is conceded position that the petitioner was successful allottee in the draw of lots and on account of change of his correspondence address as given in the application form without any intimation to the respondents, he failed to deposit the required amount within the stipulated period of 45 days after the allotment letter dated 20.07.2005 was sent on his correspondence address which was received back undelivered with the remark of the postal authorities ‘ Bar-Bar Pata Kiya Kuch Pata Nahi Chalta, Vapis’. It has also been claimed that show cause notice was sent to the petitioner at his permanent address which was wrong address under registered post which was not received back as undelivered. Likewise, Cancellation order dated 13.01.2006 was also attempted to be served to the petitioner through registered post, which has also not been received back undelivered. Therefore, it was presumed that the registered letter containing show cause notice and cancellation orders have been delivered to the petitioner. The respondents had claimed that waiting list was prepared for allotment of Flats and the Flats had been offered to the applicants in the waiting list in the month of April, 2006. The copy of the letter dated 20.07.2005 sent at the correspondence address of the petitioner has been placed on record as CWP No.7533 of 2007 -4- Annexure R-1and copy of the letter dated 26.09.2005 has been placed on record as Annexure R-2. Further copy of the cancellation of allotment and refund of registration deposit have also been placed on record as Annexure R-3 and R-4. From the aforementioned facts, it becomes clear that letter of demand dated 20.07.2005 for depositing an amount of Rs.34,800/- within 30 days was sent purportedly on the permanent address of the petitioner. However, a perusal of the aforementioned letter dated 26.09.2005 (Annexure R-II) shows that the same was sent at A-20, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi whereas the address of the petitioner is AK-20, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Likewise, all other letters had been sent on his correspondence address which had been received back by the respondents. We have also perused the original record and find that the petitioner had given his permanent address being AK-20, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi whereas the letter had been sent with regard to demand of Rs.34,800/- at A-20, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where obviously it could not have reached him. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length, we find that the petitioner can not be considered at fault because he had given his address as AK-20, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi whereas the respondents had entered correspondence at correspondence address and permanent address by erroneously describing the same as A-20, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Therefore, the petitioner can not be made to suffer for the wrong committed by respondents. During the course of hearing, Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondents has conceded that one Flat of LIG category has been kept reserved for the petitioner and the same can be allotted to him. Therefore, we find that the petitioner deserves to the CWP No.7533 of 2007 -5- allotment of LIG Flat. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition succeeds. The respondents are directed to allot LIG Flat to the petitioner at the price mentioned in the brochure in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down therein. We further direct that the petitioner shall be liable to pay simple interest on the aforementioned price @ 9% per annum till the date of payment. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (M. M. Kumar) Judge (Jora Singh) Judge November 04, 2008 ashish