HC raps DDA for non-refund of booking amount to flat aspirant
Terming as "inconceivable", the Delhi HC has come down heavily on DDA for not refunding the booking amount of Rs 50,000 for five years to a flat aspirant who was "erroneously" declared successful in the draw of lots in 2004.
New Delhi: Terming as "inconceivable", the
Delhi High Court has come down heavily on DDA for not
refunding the booking amount of Rs 50,000 for five years to a
flat aspirant who was "erroneously" declared successful in the
draw of lots in 2004.
"Inaction by a statutory authority (DDA) specifically in
a case of this nature is inconceivable. The mistake with
regard to allotment (of flats) may be a genuine one but
definitely non-refund of the amount cannot be regarded as a
"There is total indifference. The letters were not
replied to. It is absolute impassivity and reflection of an
attitude of non-concern by the authorities who are required to
act in quite promptitude being argus-eyed (vigilant)," Chief
Justice Dipak Misra said in his judgement.
The court asked DDA to pay Rs 1.5 lakh, including Rs 1
lakh as compensation, within four weeks to the widow of Narain
Das Arora who had filed a petition against the land developing
Arora had in 2004 applied to DDA for a two-bedroom flat
and deposited a demand draft of Rs 50,000 as the booking
In the draw of lots, published in a newspaper, Arora
found himself as as successful applicant in the list.
Later, DDA clarifed by saying that "at the stage of
scrutiny of the application forms, it was noticed that the two
forms were received by the bank, one form bearing No. 096652
that was received from the said late Narain Das Arora and
another application form from one Amar Deep Singh. While
accepting the forms, the bank allotted identical number to
both the forms."
Besides the form numbers, seven digit random numbers
were also given to the forms, which were considered in the
computerised draw, DDA said, adding that in fact Amar Deep
Singh was the real winner.
The High Court, however, allowed the plea of DDA but
took strong note of non-payment of the booking amount to Arora
who died during the protracted court battle.
"The alertness or vigil is entirely absent. It would
come within the realm of total inaction whereas statutory
authorities are required to act with sensitivity and not deal
with the citizens who are aspirant to get some accommodation
may be with the process of lottery and retain their
registration amount for such a long period," the court said.
Upholding the single judge order, the bench, also
comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna, said the widow of Arora be
compensated for the inconvenience caused by DDA which had
withheld the booking amount for five years.