JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The petitioners were the original registrants
under the Hudco Registration Scheme for allotment of
MIG flat. The petitioners registered in 1979 and in
the year1994 applied for conversion of registration
from MIG to SFS VI-B Scheme which conversion was
accepted. Subsequently SFS scheme IX was announced in
1996 which was open to general public as also to
registrants of VI-B SFS scheme. The petitioners
applied for the said IX SFS scheme but the applications
of the petitioners were defective for the reason that
the column No.10 was left blank. Column No.10 require
the parties to disclose about the ownership of any
other lease hold or free hold property in their name or
in the name of their wife/husband, minor children,
dependent parents etc. In December 1996 the petitioner
applied to DDA for removal of the objections in
pursuance to a public notice issued on 18.12.1996.
However, when the list of successful applicants were
announced on 1.1.1997, the name of petitioner did not
figure in the list.
2. Certain other parties filed writ petitions
before this Court including CW No.911/1997 Keshav
Munjal Vs. DDA decided on 20.4.2000. A decision was
taken by the respondent that all eligible registrants
of SFS VI-B scheme would be given another opportunity
for consideration of their names and a fresh
computerised draw of lots were held later on 23.1.2001.
The name of the petitioner did not even figure in this
list.
3. The principal contention advanced on behalf of
the respondent in their counter affidavit is that the
application was required to be complete in all respect
and in view of the incomplete applications of the
petitioners, they could not be included in the draw of
lots. It is further stated that the orders passed by
this Court were only in respect of the petitioners who
had filed those writ petitions and cannot be extended
to other petitioners.
4. The original record have also been produced
before this Court which show that this aspect was
considered and a conscious decision was taken that it
will not be desirable to take cognizance of the
objections filed by the ineligible applicants because
other ineligible applicants may not have read the
advertisement or may not be located in Delhi. This
position was also based on the fact that the brochure
itself provided that incomplete applications were to be
rejected summarily.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
contended that under the category of the applicants,
there were only eight applicants and these persons
could have been easily accommodated.
6. It may be noticed that on the last date of
hearing, it was recorded that learned counsel for the
petitioners did not dispute the position that in case
the applications of the petitioners were not complete,
the petitioners shall not be entitled to be included in
the draw of lots though the counsel had relied upon the
issue of correction of the mistake in terms of the
letter of December, 1996.
7. It has been stated before me by learned counsel
for the respondent that IX SFS scheme stands closed now
and the petitioners also did not approach the Court in
1997 when other persons had approached the Court,
though they were also slightly differently situated.
8. I am of the considered view that a conscious
decision having been taken in this behalf, taking into
consideration the over all facts and circumstances of
such cases as also by reason of the fact that
admittedly the applications filed by the petitioners
were incomplete and were thus liable to be rejected
summarily, no case has been made out to grant the
relief as prayed in this writ petition in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage
makes a further request that taking into consideration
that the petitioners were all registrants under1979
scheme who could not be allotted flats due to large
number of applications received and thereafter
converted into SFS VI-B scheme and even applied under
IX SFS scheme, they should not be totally left out
having waited for almost 23 years for allotment of
flat. It is further stated that the process of
allotment of MIG flats are going on at present and the
senioirty of the petitioners in the original
registration should have reached by now.
10. I find some force in the contention of learned
counsel for the petitioners. I thus direct that the
case of the petitioners be considered sympathetically
by the respondent for allotment of a MIG flat as per
their original registration, seniority number as
registered under 1979 scheme specially in view of the
fact allotments are still being made under the said
category. A decision be taken in this behalf within a
period of six weeks from today which would be duly
communicated to the petitioner.
11. Writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid
observations.
