1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Delhi
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January


High Court Of Delhi|10 July, 2012


1. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ, order or direction directing the respondent to allot the plots in favour of the petitioner and in case the applications of the petitioner are found to be ineligible, direct the respondent to refund the amount of money deposited by the petitioner along with interest.
2. Notice. Mr.Anshuj Dhingra, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
3. With the consent of counsel for the parties writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.
4. The necessary facts, to be noticed for disposal of the present writ petition, are that the petitioner had made an application to the MCD based on the notification issued by the MCD inviting applications from the persons operating dairies in Delhi for allotment of plots at Ghogha. In the year 2005, the petitioner applied for the said plot and on deposit of the initial WP (C) 2225-2012 Page 1 of 3 amount he was allotted three plots under the said Scheme. Upon complaints of discrepancies in the allotment of plots in the said Scheme, the provisional allotment of many of the applicants was cancelled and only genuine applicants were shifted therefrom. It is the case of the petitioner that despite being eligible the petitioner was not allotted plots.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner was not found eligible, a communication dated 2.12.2009 in this regard was also issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was also called upon to claim refund of the amount deposited with the MCD upon producing two photographs and other supporting documents. Copy of the communication dated 2.12.2009 along with postal receipts have been handed over in Court to counsel for the petitioner, to show that the said letter was posted to the petitioner.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied if the amount deposited by the petitioner with the MCD is refunded to the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the MCD submits that the MCD has followed the directions passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 1294/2008, titled as Smt. Rajni Gupta v. MCD & Anr., with regard to the manner in which amounts are to be refunded:
“33. MCD is not entitled to retain the entire sale consideration received and paid by the petitioners. Section 64 of the Contract Act is applicable. The respondent is entitled to deduct the financial expenditure incurred by them on examining the applications, sending Committee members for verification as well as some punitive demands. MCD is entitled to set off the said amount. Keeping in view facts of the present case, I feel that interest of justice would be met if MCD is allowed to set off Rs.20,000/- for each plot measuring 60 sq. mtrs. and Rs.30,000/- for each plot measuring 96 sq. mtrs. towards demands, but the balance amount should be refunded to the petitioners. The amount being forfeited is WP (C) 2225-2012 Page 2 of 3 also punitive in nature and in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Act. Respondent/MCD will refund the balance amount to the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks from today by crossed cheques. The respondent MCD will write letters by registered post to the petitioners calling upon them to furnish details of their bank account and personally come and collect the cheques. Payment will be made after properly identifying the person who had made the deposit. In case the MCD does not make payment within 6 weeks from today, it shall be liable to pay interest from the date of the order till payment @ 10% per annum.
34. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.”
8. The decision rendered by the Court in the case of Smt.Rajni Gupta (supra) has also been followed by the High Court in the case of Krishna Devi v. MCD, W.P.(C) 11195/2009.
9. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, present writ petition is allowed to the extent that the amount deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded by the MCD as per the directions passed in Smt.Rajni Gupta (supra) and Krishna Devi (Supra). The petitioner shall approach the respondent within two weeks from today for refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner with the respondent in terms of the communication dated 2.12.2009.
10. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of in view of above.
11. DASTI.
JULY 10, 2012
msr WP (C) 2225-2012 Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.



High Court Of Delhi

10 July, 2012