The main legal point established in the judgment is that the price for allotment of the flat should be determined as per the date of filing the writ petition, and the DDA is obligated to inform allottees at all available addresses.

Najmi Waziri, J.

1. The appellant, Nanak Chand, has impugned the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge passed on 17.12.2013, which, by a writ of mandamus directed the DDA to “allot a flat of equivalent size preferably in the same area, i.e. Dwarka, New Delhi, at the price prevalent on the date of the order within a period of twelve (12) weeks”.

2. The appellant contends that the difference between the price prevalent on the date of filing the writ petition (20.12.2012) and the date of its disposal (17.12.2013) is substantial. He submits that the price has increased by Rs.7-8 lakhs, hence, he would be irretrievably prejudiced if he is asked to pay the higher price prevalent on the date of the impugned order. He contends that the learned Single Judge, in an earlier case, had directed a flat to be allotted to the petitioner at the price prevalent on the date of filing of the writ petition. He relied upon a judgement of this Court in LPA No.743/2013 titled Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mahinder Pal Sikri (Deceased) Through LRs decided on 28.11.2013 and on another judgement in LPA No.628/2013 titled Dev Raj Vs. Delhi Development Authority decided on 19.2.2014. Both the judgements held, in similar circumstances, that the flat should be allotted at the price obtaining on the date the writ petition had been filed.

3. The petitioner submits that in Mahinder Pal Sikri (supra) the Court held that the petitioner cannot be faulted because of delay in disposal of the writ petition on the basis of the established principle that, in terms of the price to be paid, the clock stops at the time of approaching the Court for the appropriate remedy, because thereafter the matter rests with the Court and not in the hands of the aggrieved petitioner. Dev Raj (supra), dealt with the issue of the allotment letter not being sent to occupational/permanent address of the applicant/petitioner after its being received back from his residential address. The Court directed that the effective date for determining the price of the flat would be the date of filing the writ petition. Being equally placed, the appellant seeks to be treated equally, in terms of the aforesaid judgements.

4. In the present appeals the learned Single Judge held, that admittedly the allotment letter was not sent to the petitioner at his occupational/official address hence it had not discharged its obligation of intimation to the appellant/allottee, in its entirety. He reasoned:

“9. It is not in dispute that at the time of registration for allotment of the flat, the Petitioner had given two addresses and the permanent address was Nanak Chand, Sr. P.A. Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi-110011. Admittedly, the allotment letter was not sent to the Petitioner at this address. Rather, the DDA has taken up the plea that although the occupational/office address was mentioned as Ministry of External Affairs, yet the allotment letter could not have been issued to him at this address as at the time of registration of the flat, the Petitioner was posted at Kathmandu, as per the income certificate. It is obvious that since the Petitioner was employed in the Ministry of External Affairs, his posting would have changed from one place to another and thus, the Petitioner had not mentioned his permanent address as the Embassy of India, Kathmandu, Nepal, rather, he has mentioned the address as Nanak Chand, Sr. P.A. Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi-110011. The Petitioner rightly hoped that if any communication is sent to him at this address, the same will reach him irrespective of the place of his posting. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the Petitioner wrote a letter dated 04.10.2001 to record the change in his current address from House No.3985, Roshan Ara Road, Delhi-110007 to B-16, Pandara Road, New Delhi. In fact, the DDA by a letter dated 22.10.2001 had asked him to submit the attested copy of the ration card and election card so that his address could be change