Raj Kumar Sharma vs Delhi Development Authority on 11 August, 2008
11. In the present case, the DDA was bound to consider whether the grounds
adduced by the Petitioner for not being able to make the payment of
instalments in time were genuine and whether the discretion could be
exercised in his favour. Apart from stating that the Petitioner should be put to
strict proof of the averments regarding his financial difficulties on account of
the prolonged illness of his family members, the DDA is not in a position to
assert that such claim by the Petitioner is false. The only factor that appears to
have weighed with the DDA is that despite granting an extension of 180 days
for making payment, the Petitioner did not pay the second instalment within
the extended time. Therefore, the allotment was cancelled. This Court finds
that the DDA really did not consider whether the delay in the present case
should be condoned in terms of its policy. It is not as if the DDA has never
condoned a delay of over 500 days in making payment of instalments. Some
of the instances are reflected in the notings on files, copies of which have
been placed as Annexure P-18 of the paper book. Certain other instances have
been noticed by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 11 th
August 2008 in Raj Kumar Sharma v. Delhi Development Authority. In para
9 of the said order, it was observed as under: