9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner is genuine; that she is the wife of original registrant and there was change of address / residence and duly informed to the respondent and the same has been properly / rightly recorded in the ration card, the only authenticated source of information. There was some doubt in the mind of the authorities, but doubt can be clarified if the relevant information was sought from the ration card authorities, who would have the relevant information, including the application submitted and other supporting documents. The only action respondent need to take is to verify the identity of the petitioner; the genuineness of the address on the ration card and the change to the present address as well - Accordingly, this Court is of the view th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of D-48, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi. It is averred that Late Sh. Gurdial Singh shifted his residence to 25/13, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and an intimation in this regard was given to the respondent vide letter dated February 27, 1986. Sh. Gurdial Singh died on August 12, 1987. It is averred that petitioner intimated the respondent regarding the death of Sh. Gurdial Singh vide letter dated August 18, 1988 and submitted necessary documents for changing the registration in her name. Respondent sought various documents / clarifications / explanations and affidavits from the petitioner including the clarification whether Late Sh. Gurdial Singh survived by his mother; whether he had left any Will; and whether one Sh. Sharanjeet Singh was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ats in Dwarka, she approached the respondent. It was revealed that Flat No. 460, Pocket 3, Sector 19, Dwarka, New Delhi was allotted in the name of her late husband Sh. Gurdial Singh in the draw held on March 21, 1994 at the cost of ₹ 4,62,592.22/- and the demand-cum-allotment letter of blocked dates July 5, 1994 to July 9, 1994 was sent to Late Sh. Gurdial Singh at the old address viz. D-48, Fateh Nagar, PS-Tilak Nagar, New Delhi 18. It is also averred that the demand-cum-allotment letter appears to have been sent to the petitioner at 25/13 Ashok Nagar, near Tilak Nagar, New Delhi rather than at fresh address furnished by the petitioner, i.e., 20/5, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi. According to her, as per the documents procured by the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to appear in the public hearing along with original ration card of both the addresses, i.e., 20/5, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi - 110018 and 25/13, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi 110018. It is the case of the petitioner that she again shifted her residence from 20/5, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi to D-21, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi 110018. On this occasion, there was change of Mandal while Ashok Nagar falls under Mandal 21 and Fateh Nagar falls under Mandal 13. On depositing the old ration card, petitioner was issued a new Ration Card No. APL-13131990. 3. In the letter dated May 8, 2009 of her counsel it was represented that she has shifted her residence and has submitted her old ration card to the authorities for issuance of new ration card. It is stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 15, 1990. It is also stated on turn of priority, the petitioner was declared successful for allotment of MIG Flat no. 460, 1st Floor, Pocket-3, Phase-I, Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi in the draw of lot held on March 21, 1994 on cash-down payment. Despite demand-cum-allotment letter sent at 25/13, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi and non-payment thereof the allotment was cancelled. Pursuant to which show-cause notice dated February 28, 1996 was issued, to which no response was received. The cancellation was effected vide letter dated May 16, 1996. It is also stated by the respondent that the petitioner had vide representation dated June 14, 2004 intimated that she had already changed her address vide letter dated September 13, 1990 and requested for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the affidavit was correctly typed in the main portion of the affidavit, however below deponent, there seems to be some typographical error due to which the name was written in hand and the same is inconsequential. 7. The aforesaid would show that both the parties tried to justify their respective stand. In substance the dispute is whether the identity of the petitioner is genuine; that she is the wife of original registrant and there was change of address / residence and duly informed to the respondent and the same has been properly / rightly recorded in the ration card, the only authenticated source of information. There was some doubt in the mind of the authorities, but doubt can be clarified if the relevant information was sought fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
