$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC012839532016 + W.P.(C) 10842/2016 & CM APPL. 2361/2018, CM APPL. 37858/2018 ASHISH DABAS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Kr. Virmani, Mr. Shubham Pandey, Ms. Surbhi Rashmi, Advs. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent Through: Ms. Kritika Gupta, Adv CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 14.09.2026 Since there was a holiday on 11.09.2026, the matter was taken up today for hearing. 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers :- “1. Issue of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus seeking appropriate directions to the Respondent Authority to allot a commercial Shop to the petitioner in a developed commercial complex as promised to be allotted by the Respondent Authority twice i.e., once in the year 2000 and again in the year 2006 at the original unit price as per which the entire sale consideration has already been paid This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:17:51 by the petitioner in the year 2000 to the respondent authority; or 2. In any case if Shop No 19, Commercial Complex, CSC-6, Rohini, Sector-16, Delhi i.e. the previous shop allotted to the Petitioner in the year 2000 and subsequently allegedly cancelled in the year 2003, has not been allotted to any other allottee and is still lying vacant, the Respondent Authority be directed to revive the allotment of the same and thereafter, issue a Possession Letter for the said Shop No 19 to the Petitioner; and 3. In case a Commercial Shop is allotted to the Petitioner, which differs in area and is larger in size, the Respondent Authority be prohibited from charging the Petitioner an amount in excess of the Unit Price according to which the Petitioner had paid the total amount of Rs 2,06,085/- for the shop of size 19.410 sq meters allotted to him earlier in the year 2000; and 4. Interest be awarded to the Petitioner at the rate of 18 percent per year on the Sale consideration of Rs 2,06,085/- paid by the Petitioner by 07.06.2000 till the date of actual handing over of the Possession Letter to the Petitioner. ...” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner participated in an auction and was successful bidder and was allotted shop bearing shop No. 19, Commercial Complex, CSC-6, Rohini, Sector-16, Delhi in the year 2000 and was issued a demand-cum-allotment letter dated 06.05.2000 demanding the balance payment of 1,55,085/- for a price This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:17:51 of Rs. 2,06,085/-. 3. There was no default in payment by the petitioner and the petitioner paid the entire sale consideration within the time with the balance consideration being paid by the Draft No. 401415 drawn on State Bank of India. 4. However, as per the auction documents, the shop admeasuring 19.41 sq. mtrs. was to be allotted but on measurement, it was found to be admeasuring 43.27 sq. mtrs. Hence, the petitioner was asked by the respondent either to pay difference in the price or to opt for another shop commensurate with the consideration paid. 5. As per the respondent, since the petitioner did not make the payment, the respondent cancelled the allotment on 05.03.2003. 6. The petitioner approached the Consumer Court in the year 2006 and since the District Consumer Forum on 13.04.2015 found that the petitioner was not a consumer, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 7. Some of the Orders passed in the petition are relevant and more particularly, 03.05.2017, 15.05.2017 and 05.11.2019, which are reproduced hereunder:- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:17:51 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:17:51 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:17:51 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:17:51 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:17:51 8. The case of the petitioner is that despite making the entire payment, the petitioner has not been given a shop. 9. On the other hand, Ms. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent states that despite repeated opportunities given to the petitioner, the petitioner did not exercise any of the options and was wanting a shop tailoring to his requirement and the same cannot be done. 10. Additionally, she states that from the date of allotment, the petitioner has not pursued the matter. I am unable to agree for the following reasons. 11. In the present case, the petitioner made the entire payment. 12. It was not the petitioner who was at fault as the petitioner had opted for a shop for measuring 19.41 sq. mtrs. The respondent made an allotment of a shop of a larger area for which the petitioner was financially not ready to meet the added/extra burden. 13. Thereafter, when the allotment was cancelled, within 3 years, the petitioner approached the Consumer forum to avail of his legal rights. 14. The Orders reproduced above clearly show that since the respondent had received the entire consideration, the respondent was fair in offering him shops of similar size. 15. The reasons aforesaid clearly show that despite making the entire payment, the petitioner has not received the possession of the shop for which the petitioner had made a bid in accordance with law. The petitioner has not been at fault ever. 16. In this view of the matter and for the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to allow the petition and the respondent shall make allotment of a similar size shop to the petitioner within 4 weeks from today. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:17:51 17. Since the writ petition has been filed in the year 2016, the rate applicable in the year, 2016 would be applicable to the allotment so made. 18. The respondent shall adjust the payment of Rs. 2,06,085/- (without any interest) and the petitioner shall make the payment within 4 weeks of the allotment. 19. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JASMEET SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2026 / (MS) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:17:51