* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 03 September 2024 Judgment pronounced on: 13 November 2024 + W.P.(C) 241/2001 & CM APPL. 23863/2024 SMT. PROMILA RASTOGI & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. D.K. Rustagi, Mr. Karan Malhotra and Mr. Jagesh Singh, Advocates.

versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashish Dhingra, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

1. The petitioner is invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by instituting the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking the following reliefs: “(a) to issue writ of mandamus/direction to institute comprehensive enquiry by appropriate agency preferably by C.B.I, for fixation of responsibility on those officials and contractors involved in the construction of multistoried complex of 816 flats at Jhilmil Colony, Phase - II in the year 1986-88.

(bi) the respondent to pay sum of Rs. 12,10,000/- to the petitioners as a compensation on account of loss of dependency, reimbursement of medical expenses, repair of balcony, loss of love & affection, mental agony and harassment suffered due to sudden demise of Shri Suresh Rustagi on 20.07.2000, as a result of collapse of balcony, of the flat no. 121-C, IInd Floor, Pocket A-1, Jhilmil, Phase-II, Delhi - 110095.

(c) the respondent to give appropriate employment to one amongst the petitioners on compensation ground.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P. (C) No. 241/2001 Page 1 of 16 (d) Cost of the Writ Petition throughout be awarded to the petitioners.

(e) any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstance in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent in order to meet the ends of justice.”

BRIEF FACTS:

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner No. 1 is the mother of petitioners No. 2 and 3, and wife of late Shri Suresh Rastogi, who passed away due to the sudden collapse of their apartment‟s balcony on 20.07.2000. Petitioners No. 2 and 3, being minor sons, are represented by petitioner No. 1 as their natural guardian.

3. The respondent/Delhi Development Authority, [DDA] constructed 816 flats in Jhilmil Colony, Phase-II, for low and medium-income groups, with construction in the year 1983 and completed in 1987. The flats, each consisting of two living rooms and a bathroom, were priced at Rs. 86,700/- in the year 1985-86.

4. One such flat was allotted by the DDA to the registered applicants, namely Shri G.P. Bajaj son of Shri M.R. Bajaj vide allotment letter dated 17.11.1988. The petitioner claims that the applicants were coerced into signing the terms under threat from the DDA. Anyhow, the DDA in due course of time handed over the possession of Flat No. 121-C, located on the second floor, in Pocket A-1, under the Jhilmil Colony, Phase-II scheme, to Shri G.P Bajaj.

5. Upon taking possession, Shri Bajaj and other allottees found the flats to be of substandard quality. In response, they formed the Jhilmil Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P. (C) No. 241/2001 Page 2 of 16

DDA Flat Resident Association, [Association] (registered in 1989) to address these concerns. On. 28.12.1993, the Association passed a resolution to address the construction quality issues, including problems with the boundary wall, and submitted a representation dated 01.02.1994 to the DDA. In response, the DDA, vide letter dated 01.06.1994, denied its responsibility for substandard construction without providing a valid reason. The Association then filed Complaint No. 145 of 1994 on 06.06.1994 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, highlighting the deteriorating condition of the said flats. The petitioners allege negligence by the DDA for failing to address the deterioration of the building's structure, including plaster peeling within 5-6 years, when it should last 40-50 years.

6. On the fateful day i.e., 20.07.2000, the balcony of