9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , dated 27.1.1997, for allotment of a flat under a hire purchase scheme along with application money of ₹ 20,000/-. After considering the application of the respondent No.1 along with other applicants, a draw of lots was held on 28.6.1997 and an M.I.G. flat was allocated to the respondent No.1 and she was informed vide letter dated 19.11.1997 about the said allocation. As per the said allocation letter, the allotment was for a tentative cost to the tune of ₹ 4,79,200/-. Respondent No.1 would deposit a further 15% of the price of the flat within 30 days of the issuance of the allotment letter and the balance amount was to be deposited in equal monthly installments over a period of 13 years. It was also open for her to make payment of the balance amount in a lump sum within 60 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter. The authority issued the letter of allotment dated 9th March, 1999 in her favour, which made it clear that the price of the house was ₹ 5,55,200/- and that she had to send her acceptance of the allotment and deposit 25% of the amount within 60 days of the receipt of the allotment letter. She had to deposit the balance amount in monthly insta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities, as in spite of the order of allotment, the allotment had been cancelled without issuing any show cause notice to her or sending any information whatsoever. The High Court has rightly taken note of the fact that the notice was sent to an incorrect person and to the incorrect address. Therefore, the order of the High Court does not warrant interference. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The Appellate Authority, after considering the pleadings, appreciating the evidence on record and hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 did not deposit the required amount and did not execute the hire- purchase agreement and she failed to give any cogent reason for the same. The appeal was rejected. 10. Before the Revisional Authority, no factual foundation had been laid by respondent No. 1 on relevant factual aspects, particularly, on the fact that she had not received the allotment letter. The only relevant ground reads as under: That due to some financial difficulties, the applicant-petitioner could not arrange t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent in the Court on 12.11.2007. To this effect, an affidavit was filed on 20.11.2007. A specific plea was taken therein that the allotment letter was sent to respondent No. 1 at the correct address under registered cover as was recorded at serial no.364 of the Register for dispatch of registered letters and on which the stamp of the Post Officer, SAS Nagar, dated 11.3.1999 had been affixed along with 11 other registered letters dispatched on that date. Photocopies of those allotment letters were appended along with affidavit. It was further submitted that the letter of cancellation was also sent to the same address where the allocation and allotment letters had been sent. 16. The matter came up before the Court on 22.11.2007 when the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 stood allowed without examining the entire record placed before the Court, only on the ground that the dispatch register did not contain the correct name and address of respondent No.1. The writ petition was finally allowed by the High Court within a period of 26 days of its filing without giving any proper opportunity to the present appellants to file a reply and produce material to controvert the av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Office Staff Provident Fund Anr. (2007) 14 SCC 753; Union of India Vs. S. P. Singh (2008) 5 SCC 438; Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana Vs. Inderjit Singh Anr. (2008) 13 SCC 506; and V. N. Bharat Vs. Delhi Development Authority Anr. AIR 2009 SC 1233. 21. In view of the above, the High Court ought to have examined the issue in the correct perspective, as respondent No. 1 did not controvert the plea taken by the appellants of sending the allotment letter by Registered Post. 22. Mere draw of lots/allocation letter does not confer any right to allotment. The system of draw of lots is being resorted to with a view to identify the prospective allottee. It s only a mode, a method, a process to identify the allottee i.e. the process of selection. It is not an allotment by itself. Mere identification or selection of the allottee does not clothe the person selected with a legal right to allotment. (See Delhi Development Authority Vs. Pushpendra Kumar Jain, AIR 1995 SC 1). 23. Constitution Benches of this Court in Bachhittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab Anr. AIR 1963 SC 395; and State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika AIR 1966 SC 1313, have held that an order does not become ef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, AIR 1992 SC 932; Ram Kumar Agrawal Anr. Vs. Thawar Das (D) through Lrs., (1999) 7 SCC 303; Vasantha Viswanathan Ors. Vs. V.K. Elayalwar Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 133; Anup Kumar Kundu Vs. Sudip Charan Chakraborty, (2006) 6 SC 666; Tirupati Jute Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal, (2009) 14 SCC 406; and Sanghvi Reconditioners (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 733. In the instant case, as the new plea on fact has been raised first time before the High Court it could not have been entertained, particularly in the manner the High Court has dealt with as no opportunity of controverting the same had been given to the appellants. More so, The High Court, instead of examining the case in the correct perspective, proceeded in haste, which itself amounts to arbitrariness. (Vide Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2010 SC 1237). 26. In Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. U.T. Chandigarh Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 130, this Court held that cancellation of an allotment should be a last resort. The allotment should not be cancelled unless the intention or motive on the part of the allottee in not making due payment is evident. The drastic power of resumption and forfeiture s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
