Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President—Briefly the facts are, that the complainant is from Scheduled Caste category. He got himself registered in 6th Self Financing Scheme, 1985 and paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 17.7.85 as registration charges. It is pleaded that the respondent in 1990 released 1,828 flats in category-3 out of which 25% flats were reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) category. Thus the approximate number of flats which were to be allotted to SC/ ST category was 450.

2. It is further pleaded that there were approximately 250 SC applicants for Category-3 SFS flats. Thus each of the candidate in the normal course, would have been allotted a flat. However, he was not given a flat as his name was not considered alongwith SC registrants. On the other hand it was considered under general category. It is alleged, the mistake was admitted by the respondent and they promised to allot him a flat in the subsequent draw of lots and at the price at which the flats were allotted in 1990. However, it was not done. Therefore, it is claimed that he is entitled to allotment of a flat at the same Tice at which the flats were allotted in 1990, to the other applicants in this category.

3. The complaint has been contested by the respondent who denied the allegations of the complainant. They inter-alia pleaded that there was a large number of applicants under the reserve category in Vasant Kunj and consequently he was not allotted a flat. It is further pleaded that the complainant again applied for a flat and he was offered one, vide letter dated 26.3.93 at a price of Rs. 10,11,700/- but he did not deposit the amount and consequently the allotment was cancelled. Therefore, he was not entitled to another flat.

4. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties at a considerable length. The main grievance of the complainant is that at the time of the draw in 1990 his name was put in the general category, instead of SC/ST category by the respondent and therefore, he could not get a flat. The allegations in para 8 are relevant. It reads as follows : —

“That the applicant/complainant immediately contacted the respondent and to his surprise found that they had put his name in the general category list instead of SC/ ST list allegedly due to some mistake in the Computer. The respondent clearly admitted their mistake and, in fact, the respondent even apologised for the mistake and promised the applicant that he would be allotted a flat in the next draw of lots and obviously at the same price of 1990. The complainant was further informed that within 2 or 3 months another draw of lots would be held and he would be allotted the flat in Vasant Kunj.”

5. The respondent in the written statement did not reply the paras separately. They gave reply of paras 7 & 8 together. In the reply there is no specific denial of the fact that the complainant's case was considered in the general category. It is well-settled that if the allegations in a complaint are not specifically denied they are deemed to be admitted. In the circumstances we are of the view that the complainant's name was not considered at the time of draw in 1990 in the SC/ST category.

6. It is stated by the complainant that there were about 450 flats which were meant for SC, whereas there were 250 SC applicants. Even if he had applied for a Vasant Kunj flat it was possible that he might have been allotted a flat there. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to allotment of one category-3 flat in any area in Delhi at a price at which the flats were allotted to the SC applicants in 1990. He is also entitled to pay the price of the flat in similar instalments in which the other allotment were required to pay the same in the draw.

7. For the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint with costs and direct the respondent to allot a flat in category-3 to the complainant at the price on which similar flats h