ORDER
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to allot to the petitioner a flat at Vasant Kunj pursuant to the VIth Self Financing Housing Scheme announced by the Respondent-Authority in the year 1985 which was restricted only to retired/retiring public servants. The petitioner submitted an application for registration and allocation of flats on 5.8.85 giving preferences/options for allocation of flat in the areas namely (i) Mandakani Enclave, (ii) Kalkaji and (iii) Vasant Kunj (iv) Mukherjee Nagar. The petitioner also deposited Registration fee of Rs. 10,000/- vide Receipt No. 004332 dated 5.8.1985.
2. It is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that he was not intimated by the respondent – authority regarding any allotment of the flat
under the VIth Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1985, till the year 1994. The petitioner, however, received a letter from the respondent intimating that the flat has been allotted to the petitioner in Dwarka pursuant to draw held on 25.12.1994. On receipt of the aforesaid intimation the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent on 6.4.1994 regarding the allocation of flat under category in Dwarka Block 9 Pocket 1 requesting that the said allotment be cancelled as the petitioner did not seek for allotment of a flat in Dwarka which was a allotment under the Vth Scheme and not under the VIth Scheme under which the petitioner applied for. It was also stated in the said letter that the name of the petitioner be continued for further allocation/allotment. On 2.7.1996 a letter was sent by the respondent to the petitioner referring to the letter of the petitioner dated 6.4.1994 intimating the petitioner that he may apply for refund of the registration amount as the Scheme had been closed. The petitioner submitted that letter dated 26.8.1996 requesting the respondent authority to cancel his Registration in the VIth Self Financing Housing Scheme and demanded refund of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest thereon. It is also stated that the petitioner went to the office of the respondent for calculating the refund but upon such visit it came to his notice that he was allotted a flat at Vasant Kunj about which the petitioner was not informed by the respondent and that he had no knowledge regarding the same. The petitioner then wrote a letter to the respondent on 20.1.1997 requesting the authority to allot the flat in Category II in Vasant Kunj as allotted. Since no intimation was sent by the respondent/authority the petitioner filed the present petition in this Court.
3. The respondent has contested the suit by filing a counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that the petitioner was registered under the VIth SFS Scheme and after giving a number of opportunities to the registrants the respondent in the year 1984 decided to close the Scheme and on 10.3.94 to 15.3.94 released last and final opportunity to allot a flat under the VIth SFS Registration Scheme and that while availing the said opportunity the petitioner applied for allotment. It was stated that the petitioner was, however, not successful according to his choice. The petitioner was, however, in that manner allotted with a Category II 3rd Floor Flat in Block 9 Pocket I in Dwarka Residential Scheme vide allocation-cum-demand letter dated 10.3.1994/15.3.1994. It is stated that the petitioner did not opt for Dwarka flat stating that the same was not acceptable to the petitioner and accordingly the same was cancelled. It is, however, stated that in the file of the petitioner it was wrongly mentioned that the allocation application of the petitioner was not traceable and that original registration application had already been attached in File No. F. 125 (189)89/VK/III. It is also stated that the aforesaid file actually belongs to Shri Sandeep Lal who had already been allotted a flat and that, therefore, in view of the aforesaid wrong insertion by the dealing assistant this confusion had taken place and in fact no flat was allotted to the petitioner in the Vasant Kunj area at all.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the counsel appearing for the respondent. Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterates the submissions made in the writ petition and has contended that the noting in the file belonging to the petitioner giving reference of a file number in which a flat is allotted at Vasant Kunj indicates that the petitioner was allotted a flat at Vasant Kunj and in order to cover up the error a false plea has been taken by respondent that the petitioner was not allotted a flat at Vasant Kunj but he was allotted a flat at Dwarka. The aforesaid contention of the counsel has been refuted by the counsel appearing for the respondent and in support of the contention she has placed the relevant records before me which I have perused.
5. The records pertaining to the file of the petitioner indicates that it is mentioned that there has been no other allocation except in F.No. 125 (189) 89. On the top of the said endorsement there are two other endorsements with seal to the following effect :-
“DA(R) may please attach the RR & AA alongwith the report regarding other allocation.”
“RR attached in File No. 125(189) 89/VK/III.”
6. On the top of the aforesaid endorsement their appears an endorsement to the effect “AA not traceable”. Relying on the aforesaid notings in the file counsel for the petitioner sought to submit that the petitioner was in fact allotted a flat at Vasant Kunj which is established by the aforesaid endorsement. In order to scrutinise the merit of the submission I have also perused the records of File No. 125 (189) 83/SFS/VK-II to which reference is made in the file of the petitioner. The said file relates to one Shri Sandeep Lal who has been allotted a flat at Vasant Kunj. The explanation given by the respondent in its additional affidavit how the aforesaid error has crept it is found to be bona fide. There was an error in making an entry in the file of the petitioner and in giving reference of a file number which obviously was not relatable to the petitioner but was in respect of another registrant. The error is found to be bona fide and inadvertent. But the said entry does not justify the allegation of the petitioner that he was allotted a flat at Vasant Kunj. The petitioner was allotted a flat at Dwarka which he refused to accept contending that he is not interested in having a flat at Dwarka which was offered to the petitioner. In this connection reference may be made to his letter dated 6.4.1994 wherein the petitioner stated that the allocation of flat at Dwarka may be cancelled and he may be continued for future allocation/allotment. When the petitioner was asked to get the refund of the registration as the Scheme have been closed, the petitioner requested the respondent to cancel his registration of VIth Self Financing Housing Scheme’ 1985 and to get the amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by him alongwith interest refunded to him by his letter dated 26.8.1996. In terms of aforesaid instructions the respondent – authority cancelled the registration and also the allotment of flat in favour of the petitioner at Dwarka. Such action, therefore, calls for no interference at all. There is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed without cost.