The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to fulfill its obligation to allot a flat to the petitioner in accordance with the relevant rule.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent, Delhi Development Authority, to allot a MIG Flat to the petitioner and to charge him for the same in accordance with the relevant rule, as prevailing in August, 1989.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was registered for allotment of flats in New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. He was so registered for allotment of MIG flat. The name of the petitioner was to be included in the draw of lots but the same was omitted due to an error committed on the part of the respondent-Authority. The petitioner represented against non-inclusion of his name in the draw held in March, 1989. The representation was accepted by the Vice Chairman of the Authority and the name of the petitioner was directed to be included in the draw immediately. The draw of lots was then held on August 31, 1989 and the name of the petitioner was included and he was allotted flat No. 178-D, Block No. F, Nand Nagri, Delhi, on cash down basis at the price of Rs. 1,69,000. 00. The same is borne from annexure II, filed with this writ petition. , which is letter of allotment.

( 3 ) THE Authority committed a mistake again inasmuch as the said flat had already stood allotted to someone else and the petitioner accordingly could not be put in possession of this flat. Further representation was made by the petitioner on October 12, 1989, which is annexure III to this writ petition, wherein, it was clearly stated that the petitioner may be allotted an alternative flat in the same area, as the above mentioned flat already stood allotted to somebody else. There is no response to this representation and further representation was made by the petitioner, which is filed as Annexure IV to this writ petition.

( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner was considered and it was admitted that flat No. 178-D, Block F, Nand Nagri, Delhi, which was allotted to the petitioner in the draw held on August 31, 1989 on cash down basis, had already been allotted to some other registrant and it was also admitted to be a clear case of double allotment. The petitioner, meanwhile, also represented to the Authorities that he is an handicapped person and his disability is 48%. His both limbs are out of order and he may be considered for allotment as a handicapped person in the next draw.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent-Authority submits that the petitioner was allotted flat No. 21-D, Pocket A, third floor, Nand Nagri, as the petitioner was covered for an alternative allotment of flat in view of the policy of the DDA for giving relief to the registrants in cases of double allotment. The cost of this flat was Rs. 2,23,400. 00. This was not acceptable to the petitioner as obviously he was asked to pay more than what was payable by him for the original allotment. The Counsel for the D. D. A. further submits that the Authority is now willing to allot an alternative flat to the petitioner and the flat earmarked in this regard is 21-D, Pocket A, third floor, Nand Nagri, Delhi, as the matter is concluded by ajudgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Sharda v. D. D. A. in Civil Writ No. 736/92 decided on April 27, 1993, wherein the Division Bench directed the respondent to issue a fresh demand letter and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the allotted flat on payment of the fresh demand. As the matter is covered by this judgment, the writ petition has to be allowed. Respondent is directed to issue a fresh demand letter in respect of flat No. 21-D, Pocket A, Nand Nagri, Delhi, which is on the same floor and same locality, as was allotted to the petitioner in the first instance, in a draw held on August 31, 1989. The Authority shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the flat to the petitioner within one week on payment of the fresh demand and submission of relevant documents.

( 6 ) MR. S. N. Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner