33. $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Delivered on: 05.05.2010 + W.P.(C) 9214/2009 VINOD BHOJWANI ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. R.K. Saini and Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Advs. versus DDA ..... 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 in the year 1979 the petitioner applied for an MIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. The name of the petitioner was included in the draw held on 21.3.1994 and was allotted a flat bearing no.406, Pocket 3, Sector 19, Dwarka, Delhi. According to the petitioner the demand-cum-allotment letter was not received by him as it was sent by the DDA at a wrong address i.e. BA-278, Janakpuri. From the year 1994 till February, 2006, the petitioner was neither informed by the DDA nor the petitioner had any information that a flat was allotted to him in the draw, which was held. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is only pursuant to a public advertisement issued by the DDA in the newspapers to the effect that all registrants of MIG category under NPRS 1979 Scheme have already been allotted flats and registrants who have not received the refund / allotment may contact the DDA personally. The petitioner visited the office of DDA on 13.2.2006 when he was informed that a flat at Dwarka had already been allotted to him in the year 1994. Petitioner is stated to have made a representation to the DDA on 13.2.2006 informing the DDA that he had not received any allotment / demand letter and neither there was any change in his address. The petitioner received no response from the DDA. Petitioner made another representation to DDA on 21.2.2007. Petitioner also visited the office of the DDA in the month of February, 2008, when he inspected the file and learnt that the allotment letter had been sent at the wrong address. Another representation dated 13.2.2008 was made to the DDA but no response was received. Petitioner then made an application under Right to Information Act for supply of relevant documents and information when petitioner was informed that his case for allotment was under consideration. By letter dated 1.7.2008 petitioner was called upon to submit attested copies of his registration documents, which were submitted by the petitioner on 9.7.2008. Thereafter, no response was received from the DDA except a letter dated 7.10.2008 by which his representation was rejected. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the record of the DDA would show that the demand-cum-allotment letter was, in fact, sent at the wrong address to the petitioner in the year 1994 and in view thereof the case of the petitioner would be covered by the Wrong Address Policy of the DDA. Counsel further submits that even the show cause notice issued to the petitioner was sent at the wrong address. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that demand-cum-allotment letter was sent to the petitioner but the same was returned undelivered. The show cause notice was also sent to the same wrong address and in the absence of any response to the show cause notice the allotment made to the petitioner was cancelled. In the counter affidavit, there is no explanation as to why the DDA did not respond to the representations made by the petitioner and also that the DDA did not follow its own policy which is formulated by them. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the original record. The basic facts are not in dispute that in the year 1979 the petitioner applied for an MIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. The name of the petitioner was included in the draw held on 21.3.1994 and was allotted a flat bearing no.406, Pocket 3, Sector 19, Dwarka, Delhi. As per the original record which has been produced in Court shows that the demand-cum-allotment letter was sent to the petitioner by the DDA at the wrong address. The original record also shows that the show cause notice was also sent at the wrong address. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the lapse and inaction on the part of the DDA. Further, I find that there is no explanation at all as to why the DDA did not rectify its own mistake and why the DDA did not apply the Wrong Address Policy to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has visited the office of the DDA on 13.2.2006 and immediately made a representation to the DDA. Petitioner thereafter made another representations to the DDA on 21.2.2007, February, 2008 and 28.8.2008 to which the DDA did not give any satisfactory response. DDA has not only deprived the petitioner of a flat, which could have been handed over to him in the year 1994 but after a mistake was pointed out the DDA has for the reasons best known to them not considered the representations of the petitioner in accordance with law and on the basis of their own policy. The conduct of the DDA is to be depreciated. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. A flat, if available, in the same area, shall be allotted to the petitioner within a period of three months from the receipt of the order, at the cost to be worked out of the year 1994 together with interest @ 12% or the current cost, whichever, is lower as in February, 2006, as per the terms of the policy. The Vice-Chairman, DDA, is directed to appoint a senior officer to conduct an enquiry and file a report as to why the representations of the petitioner were not dealt with as also why the case of the petitioner was not dealt with in accordance with Wrong Address Policy of the DDA when the original record shows that the demand-cum-allotment letter was, in fact, sent at the wrong address. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of in view of above. Costs, quantified at Rs.10,000/-. G.S. SISTANI, J. May 05, 2010 'msr’