Delhi Development Authority v. DC Sharma

Citation: REVISION PETITION NO.895 OF 2013 

Bench:  Justice V. B. Gupta and Mrs. Rekha Gupta

Facts

• In this case, DC Sharma (respondent), a government servant paid an initial amount for allotment of a plot of ₹ 5 lacs in 1997, by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter called DDA). 
• DC Sharma requested extra time for the instalment payment as he wished to avail loan facility from his office.
• Meanwhile, it was realised that the plot allotted to him through a draw of lots had already been allotted to another person, two years before the draw of lots. 
• Due to this negligence of the (Delhi Development Authority) DDA, the respondent approached the District forum that dismissed the case. Subsequently, the State Consumer forum was approached that passed an order in favour of the respondent.

Decision

Order of the State Commission

The state commission in its order held the state responsible, for (Delhi Development Authority) DDA is a government entity. It directed DDA to allot an alternative plot of the same kind or pay the escalated price of ₹30 lacs. The DDA relies on a frivolous argument that the case is liable to be dismissed since the respondent did not pay the instalment and therefore, his application stood rejected. Whereas, in reality, the allotted plot number has already been assigned to someone back in 1995 and the DDA took no steps to correct its own error in the allotment.

Order of the National Commission

Government departments such as DDA harassing genuine buyers in technical pleas – The National Commission criticised the conduct of DDA by stating that Governments and public authorities should not adopt the practice of relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. It was well within the capacity of the DDA to remedy this error and take corrective action. On the contrary, it kept the condoning its own mistake by shifting the blame on the respondent.

Punitive damages for pursuing a frivolous case – While upholding the order of the State Commission, The national commission imposed costs of ₹2 lacs as well as punitive damages of ₹ 5 lac rupees on the DDA and asked them to recover the amount from erring officials who pursued the case for eighteen years. This long delay led to harassment of the respondent and filing of meritless appeals in various courts. This has not just added to litigation costs but also wasted time of several courts as well as the public ex-chequers money.