Dipak Misra, CJ.

The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 9th December, 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7822/2009.

2. The facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that the original writ petitioner-Narain Das Arora (since deceased) pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent-DDA dated 6th June, 2004 published in `Hindustan Times', Delhi applied for allotment of a two bed room flat under the Housing Scheme-2004 vide application form No. 096652 on 30th June, 2004. On 3rd July, 2004, he deposited the application form No. 096652 along with the bank draft of Rs. 50,000/- with the UTI Bank.

3. As set forth, the results of the computerized draw held by the DDA was published in `Hindustan Times', Delhi on 13th August, 2004 in which the application form number of the original writ petitioner was reflected and the petitioner was declared successful. When he contacted the competent authorities of the DDA, he found that against his application a wrong name had been shown. It was contended before the writ Court that despite being successful, the name against the application form was incorrectly mentioned and, therefore, he was entitled to get benefit of allotment. That apart it was also urged that the initially deposited amount had not been refunded. In this backdrop prayers were made for issue of command to allot a flat and also to grant compensation for the inaction of the respondents.

4. The stand put forth by the late Narain Das Arora was combated by the DDA on the ground that at the stage of scrutiny of the application forms it was noticed that the two forms were received by the bank, one form bearing No. 096652 that was received from the said late Narain Das Arora and another application form from one Mr. Amar Deep Singh. It was put forth that while accepting the forms, the bank allotted identical number to both the forMs. The application form number of the petitioner was 096652 and the application form number of Mr. Amar Deep Singh was 96652. The system department of the DDA reported the error which crept in on the mistake committed by the bank. It was contended by the respondent-DDA that such a situation had arisen in the past as well and in order to solve the problem, prior to processing, as per the practice adopted by the DDA, a digit 7 is added to one of the application form number and thereafter a check list was generated. It was submitted that pre-fix `7' was added by the computer itself against the application of the writ petitioner as per the software and the form numbers could not be manually changed. To put it differentially, various justifications were given to highlight that the writ petitioner could not have gained any kind of advantage because of inadvertent acknowledgement of an identical number.

5. The learned single judge upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the factual matrix in toto came to hold as follows:-

6...The DDA in turn did not make any correction in the list, which was received from the Bank in view of the difficulty expressed on account of the software. However to resolve the issue before the draw of lots and to give a separate identity to both the application forms, a digit `7' was added to the form of the petitioner. No doubt the name of the petitioner appears in the list of successful applicants in the Hindustan Times, daily, however, in reality the digit `7' was added before the form of the petitioner prior to the number being added in the draw of lots. I am satisfied that the name of the petitioner appeared in the list of the successful applicants by mistake. Except for the inconvenience which may have been caused to the petitioner, I find there is no infirmity in the steps taken by DDA, the name of both the applicants were added in the draw of lots and the petitioner was not found successful..."

6. Questioning the correctness of the order, learned counsel for the appella