SH. BALDEV RAJ vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18.03.2025 + W.P.(C) 4972/2018 SH. BALDEV RAJ .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Ujala Vishnoi, Mr. Randeep Singh, Mr. Om Dutt Kaushik and Ms. Akshita Chopra, Advocates. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil) for GNCTD. Ms. Vrinda Kapoor, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC for IT Department. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The Registry is directed to remove the duplicate copy of the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent/DDA. 2. The present Petition seeks to challenge a communication dated 08.09.2017 issued by the office of Respondent No.2/SDM (Punjabi Bagh), wherein a direction has been passed that the representation of the Petitioner cannot be considered for allotment of a flat for Punjab migrants. 3. The case of the Petitioner has a checkered history. Previously, a Petition was filed by the Petitioner being W.P.(C) 5644/2015 captioned Baldev Raj v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated 28.01.2016 had directed that the Petition filed by the Petitioner be treated as a representation and it be decided by way of a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4972/2018 Page 1 of 8 By:RAHUL Signing Date:15.04.2025 10:45:27 reasoned order within eight weeks. The Petitioner was also given the liberty to take action in accordance with law if the representation is rejected. 3.1 It is the case of the Petitioner that although a reasoned order was passed by Respondent No.1, however, the documents which were made available by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 were not considered, hence rejected. This led to the