Manmohan, J.

1. Though the present writ petition had been filed on 1st October, 2014, yet as fundamental defects like the impugned order and the list of dates were not filed for a long time, the present case was listed before the Court by the Registry on 24th November, 2015. On the said date of hearing, counsel for the petitioner appeared and undertook to rectify the defects within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, the defects were rectified and the matter is being taken up for hearing today.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent-DDA raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground of delay and laches. She points out that the delay in payment on the part of the petitioner was condoned and the allotment was revived in the year 2000. She also points out that the petitioner had given her consent for allotment of a flat at Rohini in the year 2000. According to her, the cause of action for filing the writ petition, if any, arose in the year 2000, and since the present writ petition has been filed only in 2015, the same is barred by delay and laches.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the