CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/001297
Babu Lal Dutta Vs DDA
Dated : 25.3.2010
This matter was initially heard by this bench of the
Commission on 10th February, 2010. The proceedings of the day are
extracted below :-
"Appellant : Shri Babu Lal Dutta
Public Authority : Delhi Development Authority
(through Smt Krishna Mehta, Dy. Director (Janta
Housing) and Shri Krishan Lal, Asstt)
Date of Hearing : 10.2.2010
Date of Decision : 10.2.2010
FACTS
:
The matter, in short, is that the appellant had registered himself for ta
Janata flat under JHRS/96. The address given int eh application form was Block
No. 2/269, Dakshi Puri Extension, New Delhi-110062. It appears that flat was
allotted to him in 2005 but as per his claim, Demand-cum-Allotment letter was
not delivered to him on the above address, with the result that the has been
deprived of the allotment. In this connection, he had sought certain information
under the RTI Act. Aggrieved with the decisions of CPIO & AA he had filed the
present appeal.
2. Heard on 10.2.2010. Appellant is present along with Shri S. Lahiri. The
public authority is represented by the officers named above. Smt Mehta would
submit that the Demand-cum-Allotment letter was sent to the appellant on the
address : 20/89, Dakshinpuri Extension but this letter was returned undelivered
by the postal authorities. Thereafter, Show Cause Notice was also issued to the
appellant at the same address but it was also returned undelivered by the postal
authorities. Consequently, the allotment had to be cancelled.
3. She would also submit that she is prepared to process the matter afresh if
the appellant furnishes proof of residence at 2/269, Dakshinpuri Extension.
4. The appellant, however, would submit that there is no address : 20/89 in
the said colony and agrees to provide proof of his residence at 2/269, Dakshinpuri
Extension during the relevant period. On the receipt of such proof, Smt Mehta
would examine the matter afresh for appropriate decision.
5. In view of the above, the appellant is desired to render proof of his
residence at 2/269. Dakshinpuri Extension to Smt Mehta in two weeks time.
6. Before parting with this matter, we would like to refer to the Supreme
Court judgment dated 2nd September, 2008 in V.N Bharat Vs DDA (Civil Appeal
No 1373 of 2006). In this case, it was the plea of DDA that demand letter had
been served on the opposite party. This was denied by the opposite party. The
Supreme Court held that the owners of onus of service of notice shifted back to
DDA. The paras 17, 18 & 19 of the judgment are extracted below :-
“17. As will be evident from what has been mentioned hereinbefore,
the real controversy in this appeal appears to be whether the demand letter
dated 10th September, 1996, for payment of the fifth and final installment
had, in fact, been received by the appellant and as to whether non-
compliance with the same resulted in termination of the appellant’s
allotment and whether the restoration of such allotment on a
representation made by the appellant would amount to a fresh or new
allotment.
18. As submitted by Ms Tripathy, except for the statutory presumption
under Section 114(f) of the Evidence Act, there is no other material to
suggest that the demand notice had actually been received by the
appellant.
19. The assertion of service of notice on account of such presumption
has been denied by the appellant as a result whereof onus of proving
service shifted back to the respondent. The respondent DDA has not led
any other evidence in support of the presumption of service. In such
circumstances, it has to be held that such service had not been effected.
Therefore, when on the appellant’s application for restoration of the
allotment, the allotment was restored, the only conclusion that can be
arrived at is that the earlier allotment continued as no cancellation and/or
termination had, in fact, taken place in terms of clause 4 of the Scheme in
question.”
7. It is expected that Smt Mehta will process the matter keeping in view the
evidence furnished by the appellant, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India and the principles of equity, justice and good conscience.
8. The matter will come up for hearing on 25.3.2010 at 1030 hrs.”
2. As scheduled, the matter is called for hearing on 25.3.2010 at
1030 hrs. The appellant is present along with Shri S. Lahri but
nobody has appeared for DDA. Hence, the Assistant Registrar of the
Commission is directed to contact Smt Krishna Mehta, Dy Director
(Janta) (H), to ascertain as to why nobody has appeared for DDA.
She informs the Assistant Registrar that she has since been promoted
as Director and her Branch had also been changed. However, she
deputes Shri Krishan Lal, Assistant (Janta Flats) to appear before the
Commission at 1300 hrs. The hearing is resumed.
3. Shri Krishan Lal, produces the relevant file before the
Commission wherein Dy Director (Janta) has recorded the following
note dated 18.3.2010 :-
“In this case DAL was issued in the year 2005 at the address
20/89, Dakshin Puri Extn, Delhi. Our RR is reported to be
missing. Applicant has reported to be living at the address
2/111. Dakshinpuri, New Delhi in the year 2002 onwards
which was never informed to DDA. Registrant has not given
any documents to find out what was the address of the
applicant at the time of registration.
In view of the above, we may inform CIC that applicant
can not be allotted a flat under wrong address policy, if agreed
please.”
4. This bears the approval of Commissioner (Housing).
5. A bare reading of the above note would indicate that the Dy
Director (Janta) & Commissioner (H) have refused to consider the
request of the appellant for allotment of Janta Flat despite the fact that
the DAL was not sent to him on the address given by him in the
registration application.
6. It may be recalled that the appellant had registered himself for
a Janta Flat in 1996 and the address given by him was Block No
2/269, Dakshin Puri Extn, New Delhi. However, interestingly, DDA
had issued demand-cum-allotment letter to the appellant on the
address 20/89, Dakshin Puri Extn and the said letter naturally, was
returned undelivered by the postal authorities. Shri Krishan Lal was
queried as to from where the above said address came in the records
of DDA. He would simply say that this address happened to be fed in
the DDA computer and it must have been done on the basis of some
records. But the DDA file does not contain any such document.
7. We have perused the DDA file and find that the original
Application Form filed by the appellant is not available which
contained the appellant’s genuine address, that is, Block No 2/269,
Dakshin Puri Extn, New Delhi. Disapperance of the original
Application Form from the DDA’s records puts a question mark on
the conduct of concerned DDA officials. It is also to be emphasised
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has clearly laid down that
the onus of service of notice clearly lies on DDA. In the present case,
the demand-cum-allotment letter should have been sent to the
appellant on the address given by him in the Application Form, that
is, House No 2/269, Dakshin Puri Extn, New Delhi. DDA, however,
concededly sent the said communication on a different address, that
is, 20/89, Dakshin Puri Extn, New Delhi. The rationale behind this
course of action has not been explained in the relevant file of DDA.
Nor is it explained by Shri Krishan Lal who is present before the
Commission.
8. Needless to say, dispatch of demand-cum-allotment letter at the
wrong address has caused severe detriment to the appellant
inasmuchas he has lost the Janta Flat. We are, therefore, of the clear
opinion that the view taken by the DDA, is against the ratio of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as extracted in para
06 of the Commission’s proceedings dated 10.2.2010. It, thus, appear
to the Commission that the view taken by the DDA is against the
principles of equity and justice.
9. Let a copy of this decision be sent to Vice Chairman, DDA;
Principal Commissioner-cum-Secretary, DDA, and Commissioner
(H) for reconsideration of the matter in the light of the Supreme Court
ruling extracted above.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall
be supplied against application and payment of the charges,
prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. The Vice Chairman
Delhi Development Authority,
INA, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi-110023
2. Principal Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
Delhi Development Authority,
INA, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi-110023
3. The Commissioner (H),
Delhi Development Authority,
INA, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi-110023
4. Shri Babu Lal Dutta
2/111, Dakshinpuri Extn,
New Delhi-110062