Ram Chander Lamba v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. Mr. B. Mahapatra, Advocate enters appearance for the respondents and fairly does not oppose the application for early hearing.

2. For the aforesaid reason, the present application is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of. 2018:DHC:3245 W.P.(C) 8588/2015

1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking quashing of the communication dated 29.08.2013 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby his request for grant of alternate plot has been rejected by the Recommendation Committee vide its minutes of meeting dated 12.08.2013 on the ground of non-submission of documents.

3. Ms. Jagrati Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the petitioner’s land was acquired vide award dated 01.09.1986, he submitted an application for grant of alternate plot on 09.01.1987 to the respondents. She submits that even though the petitioner had duly submitted all the requisite documents to the respondents in accordance with their letter dated 07.08.2012, the respondents issued another letter dated 04.07.2013 to the petitioner for submitting further documents. The petitioner duly submitted the requisite documents and the same was received in the office of the respondents on 17.07.2013. Ms. Singh submits that after submitting the relevant documents, the petitioner was waiting for a final decision on his Application. However, it later transpired that the petitioner’s case was rejected by the Recommendation Committee of the respondents in its meeting held on 12.08.2013, on the ground of non-submission of documents. She submits that in case any of the documents furnished by the petitioner were found to be inadequate, the respondents ought to have put the petitioner to notice, which was admittedly not done.

4. Ms. Singh further submits that immediately upon learning about the aforesaid rejection, the petitioner made a representation on 28.02.2014 to the respondents for reconsideration of his case, but to no avail. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court by way of the present petition.

5. On the other hand, Mr. B. Mahapatra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while opposing the petition, contends that once the petitioner was given an opportunity to supply the requisite documents vide letter dated 04.07.2013, the respondents were fully justified in rejecting his case on account of his failure to supply the requisite documents. He submits that while submitting his reply dated 17.07.2013, the petitioner had not provided the requisite information as was sought from him. Mr. Mahapatra places reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Raj Karan & Ors. vs. Land & Building Department & Anr., 148 (2008) DLT 460 (DB) and by referring to Paras 6 and 7 thereof, contends that once the petitioner’s case for allotment of alternate plot has been rejected, the same could not be reopened.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival contentions. What emerges from the record is that, the petitioner had applied for an alternate plot in accordance with the respondents’ policy and had submitted all the relevant documents as demanded by the respondents along with his application. The respondents had, thereafter on 07.08.2012, directed the petitioner to submit further documents, which were duly submitted by the petitioner. There is no doubt about the fact that the respondents had, vide letter dated 04.07.2013, once again directed the petitioner to submit some further information, which, the petitioner had duly submitted vide his letter dated 17.07.2013. While the receipt of the petitioner’s letter is not denied by the respondents, but their stand is that the petitioner did not provide complete documents and therefore his application was rightly rejected. The respondents however, do not deny the fact that after receiving the reply dated 17.07.2013, they never informed the petitioner that the information given by him was not adequate and straightaway rejected his Application without giving him any further notice.

7. I find that the respondents’ letter dated 04.07.2013 did not specify any particular document which was required to be submitted by the petitioner and therefore, in these circumstances, the rejection of the petitioner’s case without any further notice to him, was, in my view, not only in blatant violation of principles of natural justice but was even otherwise wholly arbitrary. I have also considered the decision in the case of Raj Karan (supra) relied upon by the respondents and I find that the same merely reiterates the settled position of law that if a person does not submit the requisite documents, the respondents cannot be faulted for rejecting his case. However, in the present case, I find that the rejection of petitioner’s application case was wholly arbitrary having been done without the principles of natural justice and therefore cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.08.2013 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s case. To avoid any further ambiguity in the matter, the respondents are directed to furnish to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a list of any additional documents which may be required from the petitioner, within a period of four weeks. The petitioner will thereafter supply the documents to the respondents within a further period of four weeks. Upon receiving the requisite documents from the petitioner, the respondents will reconsider his application and pass a reasoned and speaking order thereafter within 12 weeks.

8. Needless to say that, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents, it will be open for him to take legal recourse as permissible under law.

REKHA PALLI, J MAY 16, 2018 gm