The discretion to condone delay in payment must be exercised judiciously, requiring sufficient cause, and previous judgments do not create binding precedents without relevant provisions.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. (Oral)--The instant contempt petition has been filed with the following prayers:

"a) A Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the case for perusal;

b) A Writ of Certiorari quashing the action of the Respondent/DDA in refusing to condone the delay in payment and consequent restoration of the allotment of the flat by rejecting her representation in this regard vide letter dated 22.02.2022 (ANNEXURE P-l), in a perfunctory manner and without application of mind and without taking into consideration the relevant/material facts and grounds/provisions of the policy in this regard, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and in violation of the Rules, Regulations, policy and principles of equity, justice and good conscience and in infringement of the legal and fundamental rights of the Petitioner;

c) A Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1/DDA to condone the delay in payment in respect of the earlier allotment of MIG Flat no. 32, Pocket 8, Sector 13, Dwarka, Phase II, New Delhi, subject to payment of interest and restoration charges and then allot her either the same flat (if it is still available) or a similar flat in the same locality i.e. Dwarka, New Delhi;

d) A writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay the costs of this Petition to the Petitioner.

e) Any other writ, order or direction, which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the instant petition are as follows:

a) It is stated that in the draw held by the DDA, the husband of the Petitioner was allotted MIG Flat no. 32, Pocket 8, Sector 13, Dwarka, Phase II, New Delhi on 22.12.2001 at the disposal cost of Rs.7,43,600/-. A demand-cum allotment letter dated 26.12.2001 was issued to the husband of the Petitioner as per which an initial amount of Rs.3,93,045/- was to be deposited on or before 30.01.2022.

b) It is stated that between the years 2003 and 2007, the husband of the petitioner made regular payments amounting to Rs.4,53,284/-. However, the total amount could not be deposited within the time stipulated on account of the fact that the Petitoner's husband was suffering from various heart-related ailments and was under treatment. The Petitioner's husband eventually passed away on 06.02.2008.

c) It is stated that the Petitioner approached the respondent/DDA in order to enquire about the allotment of the aforementioned flat and she was advised to first apply for mutation/transfer of the registration allotment of the demised flat. Accordingly, the Petitioner made a request to DDA vide letter dated 28.05.2008, giving an undertaking to pay the balance amount in order for the said premises to be transferred in her name. Vide letter dated 01.07.2008, the respondent/DDA informed the Petitioner herein that the said premises had been transferred in her name, however, the same was for refund purposes only. The Petitioner also made a request for regularisation of the said flat on 18.07.2008, however, the same was to no avail.

d) In response to the applications made under the RTI Act, the Petitioner was made aware of the payment that had been made by her husband along with the balance amount which was due to be payable. It is stated that, accordingly, the Petitioner made a payment of Rs.4,57,000/- which was in addition to the money that had already been deposited by her husband, i.e. Rs.4,56,284/-, with the amount deposit totalling to Rs.9,10,284/- which was more than the balance consideration that had to be p