Full Judgment Text
20.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12633/2009
MD. JABIR HUSSAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.K. Sethi, Advocate for Ms.
Seema Kashyap, Advocate.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
O R D E R
% 05.03.2010
1. The petitioner herein had applied for five dairy plots measuring 60
th
square meters in Ghogha dairy scheme vide application dated 17 April,
2006. The petitioner’s wife Ms. Khushmuda Khatoon had applied for one
dairy plot measuring 60 square meters.
2. On verification, it was found that the petitioner did not have any
illegal dairy or cattle and he was not entitled to any allotment. It was also
noticed that the petitioner had made a wrong declaration in the application
form that he had 30 buffalos. The petitioner has not questioned the findings
recorded by the MCD rejecting the application of the petitioner. It is not
alleged and stated in the petition that the petitioner in fact had 30 buffalos
and was entitled to allotment of five dairy plots.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have deducted
Rs.20,000/- for each plot and accordingly refunded the balance amount to
the petitioner. The petitioner contends that only Rs.20,000/- should have
W.P. (C) No. 12633/2009 Page 1
been deducted per application and, therefore, the respondent-MCD has
erred in deducting Rs.20,000/- for each plot, i.e., Rs.1 lac for five plots.
4. The issue raised in the present writ petition was considered and
th
decided by judgment dated 8 April, 2008 passed in W.P. (C) No.
1590/2008 titled Chhanga Lal and Others versus MCD and Others . After
examining the contentions raised by the parties, it was directed as under:-
“33. MCD is not entitled to retain the entire
sale consideration received and paid by the
petitioners. Section 64 of the Contract Act is
applicable. The respondent is entitled to deduct
the financial expenditure incurred by them on
examining the applications, sending Committee
members for verification as well as some
punitive damages. MCD is entitled to set off the
said amount. Keeping in view facts of the
present case, I feel that interest of justice would
be met if MCD is allowed to set off Rs.
20,000/- for each plot measuring 60 sq. mtrs.
and Rs. 30,000/- for each plot measuring 96 sq.
mtrs. towards damages, but the balance amount
should be refunded to the petitioners. The
amount being forfeited is also punitive in nature
and in accordance with the provisions of the
Contract Act. Respondent/MCD will refund the
balance amount to the petitioner within a period
of 6 weeks from today by crossed cheques. The
respondent MCD will write letters by registered
post to the petitioners calling upon them to
furnish details of their bank account and
personally come and collect the cheques.
Payment will be made after properly identifying
the person who had made the deposit. In case
the MCD does not make payment within 6
weeks from today, it shall be liable to pay
interest from the date of the order till payment
@ 10% per annum.”
W.P. (C) No. 12633/2009 Page 2
5. Applying Section 64 of the Contract Act, 1872, it was held that
interest of justice would be met if MCD is allowed to set off Rs.20,000/- for
each plot measuring 60 square meters and Rs.30,000/- for each plot
measuring 96 square meters on account of financial expenditure incurred by
them on examining the application, sending committee members for
verification as well as punitive damages. The direction in the said
paragraph is clear. Deduction of Rs.20,000/- has to be made towards each
plot measuring 60 square meters and Rs.30,000/- for each plot measuring
96 square meters. As the petitioner had applied for five plots, MCD will
deduct Rs.20,000/- for each plot.
6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ
petition and the same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 05, 2010
VKR
W.P. (C) No. 12633/2009 Page 3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12633/2009
MD. JABIR HUSSAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.K. Sethi, Advocate for Ms.
Seema Kashyap, Advocate.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
O R D E R
% 05.03.2010
1. The petitioner herein had applied for five dairy plots measuring 60
th
square meters in Ghogha dairy scheme vide application dated 17 April,
2006. The petitioner’s wife Ms. Khushmuda Khatoon had applied for one
dairy plot measuring 60 square meters.
2. On verification, it was found that the petitioner did not have any
illegal dairy or cattle and he was not entitled to any allotment. It was also
noticed that the petitioner had made a wrong declaration in the application
form that he had 30 buffalos. The petitioner has not questioned the findings
recorded by the MCD rejecting the application of the petitioner. It is not
alleged and stated in the petition that the petitioner in fact had 30 buffalos
and was entitled to allotment of five dairy plots.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have deducted
Rs.20,000/- for each plot and accordingly refunded the balance amount to
the petitioner. The petitioner contends that only Rs.20,000/- should have
W.P. (C) No. 12633/2009 Page 1
been deducted per application and, therefore, the respondent-MCD has
erred in deducting Rs.20,000/- for each plot, i.e., Rs.1 lac for five plots.
4. The issue raised in the present writ petition was considered and
th
decided by judgment dated 8 April, 2008 passed in W.P. (C) No.
1590/2008 titled Chhanga Lal and Others versus MCD and Others . After
examining the contentions raised by the parties, it was directed as under:-
“33. MCD is not entitled to retain the entire
sale consideration received and paid by the
petitioners. Section 64 of the Contract Act is
applicable. The respondent is entitled to deduct
the financial expenditure incurred by them on
examining the applications, sending Committee
members for verification as well as some
punitive damages. MCD is entitled to set off the
said amount. Keeping in view facts of the
present case, I feel that interest of justice would
be met if MCD is allowed to set off Rs.
20,000/- for each plot measuring 60 sq. mtrs.
and Rs. 30,000/- for each plot measuring 96 sq.
mtrs. towards damages, but the balance amount
should be refunded to the petitioners. The
amount being forfeited is also punitive in nature
and in accordance with the provisions of the
Contract Act. Respondent/MCD will refund the
balance amount to the petitioner within a period
of 6 weeks from today by crossed cheques. The
respondent MCD will write letters by registered
post to the petitioners calling upon them to
furnish details of their bank account and
personally come and collect the cheques.
Payment will be made after properly identifying
the person who had made the deposit. In case
the MCD does not make payment within 6
weeks from today, it shall be liable to pay
interest from the date of the order till payment
@ 10% per annum.”
W.P. (C) No. 12633/2009 Page 2
5. Applying Section 64 of the Contract Act, 1872, it was held that
interest of justice would be met if MCD is allowed to set off Rs.20,000/- for
each plot measuring 60 square meters and Rs.30,000/- for each plot
measuring 96 square meters on account of financial expenditure incurred by
them on examining the application, sending committee members for
verification as well as punitive damages. The direction in the said
paragraph is clear. Deduction of Rs.20,000/- has to be made towards each
plot measuring 60 square meters and Rs.30,000/- for each plot measuring
96 square meters. As the petitioner had applied for five plots, MCD will
deduct Rs.20,000/- for each plot.
6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ
petition and the same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 05, 2010
VKR
W.P. (C) No. 12633/2009 Page 3