- (1.)The respondent got himself registered for allotment of a flat from the appellant Delhi Development Authority under its New Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS), 1979. At the time of registration, the respondent gave his address as E-397, Dev Nagar Government Quarters, New Delhi. A demand cum allotment letter with the block dates 03.05.1994 to 10.05.1994 was issued to the respondent at the address given in the application for registration. However, since the respondent had already shifted from that place, the aforesaid demand cum allotment letter was returned back with the endorsement "left without address". Though nothing was found in the record of DDA to show that the respondent had provided his changed address to the appellant, the file noting dated 05.08.1994, which the appellant produced before the learned Single Judge, at the time of hearing of the writ petition, showed that DDA was somehow aware of the changed address of the respondent which was noted as 25, Sharda Niketan, Saraswati Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-34 in the aforesaid file noting. However, the demand cum allotment letter was not sent at the new address, despite the appellant DDA being aware of it.
(2.)The appellant thereafter decided to issue a show-cause notice to the respondent. The initial address given in the show-cause notice was E-397, Dev Nagar Government Quarters, New Delhi, which was later scored off and the Pitampura address was written on the notice. The Despatch Register produced before the learned Single Judge revealed that the original address mentioned in the Despatch Register was of Dev Nagar though subsequently Pitampura address was mentioned on the side of the relevant entry. Since the allotment made to the respondent was cancelled, a writ petition was filed by him, challenging the aforesaid cancellation. The writ petition having been allowed, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.
(3.)As noted earlier before us, the new address of the respondent was very much in the knowledge of the respondent as would be evident from the noting dated 05.08.1994 made in the relevant file. Though the proposal in the file was to send the demand cum allotment letter at the new address, the record produced before the learned Single Judge revealed that the demand cum allotment letter was not sent to the new address. There is no explanation from the appellant as to why the demand cum allotment letter was not sent at the new address, despite such address being available with it.