S. MURALIDHAR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner registered himself with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) under the New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979 for allotment of an MIG flat. The petitioner at the time of registration gave his address as 1970/26, bhagwati Street, Chowk Baba Sahib, Amritsar.

( 2 ) IN 1993 the petitioner changed his residence to 81, Power Colony, majitha Road, Amritsar and sent a letter dated 4. 11. 1993 to the DDA informing it of the change of address. The petitioner in the same letter dated 4. 11. 1993 also indicated his permanent address, which was that of his parent"s at 6- Sarhadi complex, Dolly Appartment, Oppsite Canal Office, Railway Road, Amritsar-143001.

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner's allotment matured sometime in the year 1999-2000. It is the case of the Delhi Development Authority that the allotment letter was sent to his changed address at 81, Power Colony, majitha Road, Amritsar and that the said allotment letter was received back undelivered. The DDA does not deny in its reply affidavit dated 19. 12. 2006 that it did not send the allotment letter to the petitioner's permanent address which was that of his parents. The stand taken by the DDA in its counter affidavit is that it was under no obligation to send the allotment letter to the permanent address of the petitioner and that the consequential cancellation of allotment cannot be faulted with.

( 4 ) THE petitioner sent a representation to the DDA against the cancellation of allotment on 12. 9. 2005 but this was rejected by a cryptic letter dated 30. 4. 2006 wherein the DDA informed the petitioner that his request could not be acceded to and that he should apply for refund of the registration money along with the original relevant documents. This has led to the petitioner filing the present writ petition.

( 5 ) THE short question here is whether the DDA was justified in cancelling the allotment in the facts and circumstances of the case. The records of the case with the DDA have been perused. It is clear that DDA made a note of the change of address intimated to it by the petitioner's letter dated 4. 11. 1993. The DDA therefore took note not only of the present changed address of the petitioner as indicated in that letter but also the permanent address indicated therein. Apart from stating that it was under no obligation to send such allotment letter to the permanent address, there is no other explanation given by the DDA as to why it could not have sent the allotment letter to the permanent address as well. To the Court it appears that the intimation of allotment ought to have been set not only to the present address available on file but, if the allotment letter was returned undelivered, to the permanent address as well. From the point of view of the DDA this would have not only cost nothing to the DDA but it would have ensured that the DDA has made every possible effort to reach the allotment letter to the petitioner. From the petitioner's perspective, despite having intimated to the DDA his permanent residence, its failure to send the allotment letter there, meant that it resulted in the cancellation of his allotment. The loss to the petitioner of an allotment, for which he had been waiting since 1979, would indeed be far greater in such a situation. It must be realised that as a condition of eligibility for allotment of a flat under the NPRS 1979 an applicant should not own any other permanent residence. It is not difficult to imagine that persons who do not own premises in this city are quite likely to rent a residence and also periodically shift such residence taken on rent. Therefore while it is certainly the obligation of such applicant to inform the DDA of the change of address, there is also a corresponding obligation of the DDA to attempt to send the allotment letter to every possible address of the applicant that has been intimated to it and is available on its records.

( 6 ) ON the facts of the present cas