Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1881 (DEL)

SARITA SINHA v. D. D. A.

2006-10-13

S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2006
ORDER 1. The writ petitioner claims that the respondent is bound by the mandate of Section 43 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and, therefore, ought to extend rebate/concessional rates for the MIG flat, namely, Flat No. 38A, Category-2, Sector 18, Pocket-1, Rohini allotted under the Physically Handicapped Category to her by the DDA (hereinafter referred to as the flat). 2. The petitioner had registered herself with the DDA on 4.7.2003, under the Physically Handicapped Category. She claims to be disabled on account of serious injuries incurred in a road accident when she was only 12 years old. It is also claimed that she had to undergo surgery for both the hip joints in 1996, which has severely impaired her mobility. 3. In tune with its policies, the petitioners name was treated preferentially and included in a draw of lots for allotment of flats in Rohini by the DDA, on 27.8.2003. A was allotted, the petitioner represented for change of floor having regard to her disabilities. Her name was again included in another draw on 22.10.2003. In the meanwhile, on 13.10.2003 it is claimed that a policy for concession in costing for persons with disabilities was approved by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi being applicable by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). 4. A fresh demand-cum-allotment letter was issued on 12.11.2003 by the DDA. The petitioner apparently had some grievance about the costing and applied to the DDA under the Right to Information Act seeking the particulars whether Section 43 of the Act was applicable to allottees in the handicapped quota. 5. It is averred that the full amounts claimed by the DDA were paid on 11.3.2004. Accordingly, the possession of the flat was handed over on 9.6.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner continuously, but unsuccessfully represented to the DDA and to other respondents that she was entitled to concessional costing of flat. 6. In its reply the DDA has, inter alia submitted that although preferential allotment is admissible to persons with disabilities and it had even formulated a condition for concessional costing by way of 10 per cent rebate, yet the Central Government declined to approve the proposal. 6. In its reply the DDA has, inter alia submitted that although preferential allotment is admissible to persons with disabilities and it had even formulated a condition for concessional costing by way of 10 per cent rebate, yet the Central Government declined to approve the proposal. In these circumstances, this Court by an order dated 10.2.2006 after noticing the mandate of Section 43 of the Act, directed the DDA and the Central Government to examine the entire issue of allotment of flats at concessional rates to persons with disabilities. 7. On 14.7.2006, this Court had again, after noticing the previous directions, ordered that the respondents ought to take a decision on the issue. There is no representation on behalf of the Central Government today. However, Ms. Chandra, learned Counsel for the DDA has placed on record a copy of their office memorandum issue by the Ministry of Urban Development (Delhi Division) dated 9.10.2006 which seeks to deal with the revised policy for preferential allotment in terms of Section 43 of the Act. 8. Section 43 of the Act reads as follows: "43. Schemes for preferential allotment of land for certain purposes.- The appropriate Governments and local authorities shall by notification frame schemes in favour of persons with disabilities, for the preferential allotment of land at concessional rates of- (a) house: (b) setting up business; (c) setting up of special recreation centres; (d) establishment of special schools; (e) establishment of research centres: (f) establishment of factories by entrepreneurs with disabilities." 9. It is evident from a plain reading of the above provisions that claims for preferential allotment of lands and flats are to be formulated by appropriate Governments and local authorities. Such schemes are also required to incorporate the concessional rates for allotment of houses and other categories enumerated in the provisions. The expression "local authorities" has not been defined in the 1995 Act. Nevertheless, having regard to the objects of the DDA and the circumstance that it has been also established by virtue of a parliamentary enactment, namely. Delhi Development Act, there can hardly be any dispute that it would fall within the expression. Indeed the charter of the DDA is to, inter alia, evolve policies for development of the sites of Delhi and also create opportunities for housing. Delhi Development Act, there can hardly be any dispute that it would fall within the expression. Indeed the charter of the DDA is to, inter alia, evolve policies for development of the sites of Delhi and also create opportunities for housing. In these circumstances, the inaction of the respondents, particularly, the Central Government in appropriately evolving a scheme for preferential allotment, a concessional rates, cannot be countenanced or condoned. The Act came into force as far back as in 7.2.2006. It is a matter of record that the DDA had formulated a policy for concessional costing and proposed 10 per cent rebate. It is only after the filing of this objections that the Central Government appears to have woken and indicated that the concessional rate ought to be 5 per cent rebate on the cost subject to maximum rebate of Rs. 1,00,000/-. This is evident from Clause II of the Circular/Order dated 9.10.2006 of the Union Urban Development Ministry. 10. The record reveals that the Central Government appears to have taken a diametrically opposite position by indicating on 31.1 2.2003 that the proposal for concessional allotment would not be applicable. This is contrary to the expressed mandate of Section 43. 11. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the petitioner ought to get the relief. The DDA is directed to work out the fresh costing after granting the rebate of 15 per cent in the cost as per Clause 2 extracted above. Since the entire amount was paid in March, 2004 and the respondent, particularly, the Central Government has taken more than two years to decide the issue, I am of the view that ends of justice would require that an equitable order towards payment of interest should be made. 12. In the peculiar circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that it is the Central Government who delayed the decision, the interest burden should be borne by it. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be entitled to the principal amount which shall be refunded to him within four weeks by the DDA. The DDA shall also indicate the exact amount which the petitioner would be entitled to as refund to the Central Government. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be entitled to the principal amount which shall be refunded to him within four weeks by the DDA. The DDA shall also indicate the exact amount which the petitioner would be entitled to as refund to the Central Government. The Central Government shall pay interest at 10 per cent on the same for the period from 11.3.2004, till date within four weeks (of receiving information from the DDA), to the petitioner. The petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Petition allowed.