S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner seeks a quashing order in respect of two demands by the delhi Development Authority ("dda") dated 27. 11. 2003 and 07. 12. 2004 for a sum of rs. 2,13,994/- towards interest on alleged late payment. During pendancy of these proceedings, the original petitioner died, and his widow, as was substituted as legal representative. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was an employee of the DDA; he was registered under the ambedkar Awas Yojana, framed in 1989, for allotment of a flat. In December, 1999 a flat was allotted; the cost demanded was Rs. 6,74,085/ -. In terms of the demand, the petitioner paid a confirmation deposit of Rs. 20,000/- on 20. 01. 2000, i. e. within stipulated time. He also sought release of House Building Advance to the time of Rs. 2,40,000/- on 17. 01. 2000. Some queries were raised, to which he replied, and the matter ended. The DDA issued a memo on 03. 04. 2000 requiring the petitioner to submit proof of GPF savings, and the details of sources from which he proposed to pay the amount of Rs. 2,24,000/-; he furnished the particulars on 29. 06. 2000. Again, on 03. 09. 2000 further queries were made about financial status of his friends from whom the loan was being sought; these particulars were furnished on 14. 09. 2003. ( 3 ) THE HBA was sanctioned by DDA's order dated 09. 06. 2003; this was conveyed to him on 20. 06. 2003. The Petitioner, in his application dated 06. 09. 2003 disclosed the payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- from his GPF account and from his wife's account. In the meanwhile, on 16. 10. 2000, DDA issued a show-cause notice alleging non-compliance with the demand, and proposing cancellation of the allotment. Upon the Petitioner's representation, it relented, and made the impugned demand. ( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit, as well as in the course of the hearing, the DDA's stand is that the Petitioner was at fault, in not disclosing the relevant particulars, to enable sanction of the HBA, and no exception can be made in his favour. It was also contended that the DDA had to satisfy itself that all formalities were properly completed, and that the sources from where advances were secured, were unobjectionable. ( 5 ) THE DDA has produced the original file. It was also contended that the DDA had to satisfy itself that all formalities were properly completed, and that the sources from where advances were secured, were unobjectionable. ( 5 ) THE DDA has produced the original file. After submission of particulars and clarification by the Petitioner, on 03. 09. 2000, all the materials were seen, and a detailed note, recommending release of HBA, was prepared and approved by the joint Director on 20. 09. 2000. The Director, on 21. 09. 2000, again desired further clarifications from the petitioner, regarding sources of private advances. No information, or clarification was elicited from him; and the matter languished for more than a year. In May, 2005, a note was submitted, stating that "admissibility report" was available, and placed on file. After a delay of one more year, the proposal was approved on 30. 7. 2003. ( 6 ) THE above conspectus of facts reveal that the petitioner sought for HBA in 2000; his proposal was approved in August 2000. Nevertheless, DDA in its wisdom, wanted to review the issue. There is no material or even notice to the petitioner, indicating that any fresh particulars were called for, or supplied belatedly. In fact, the petitioner wrote reminders seeking early action; the report (after fresh look) was available in May 2002; yet the loan was approved only in August 2003. In view of these circumstances, the DDA was not justified in issuing the impugned demand for Rs. 2,13,994/ -. The pleadings in these proceedings show that the entire cost of the flat was deposited in 2003 itself. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion, I hold that the impugned demand is arbitrary. The impugned orders are hereby quashed. Having regard to the fact that the amounts demanded less interest appear to have been paid by 1st August, 2003 ( as is evident from the letter dated 18th August, 2004 written by the petitioner), a direction is issued to the respondent DDA to complete the necessary formalities and hand over possession of the flat to the petitioner's wife within six weeks from today. No costs.