Delhi Development Authority VS D.C.

Sharma

Group No. 7

Introduction:

Delhi Development Authority v. D.C. Sharma is a case which deals with negligence done by
statutory authority. With all of this, the concerned authority put all blame on the complainant and
increases his problems for the last 18 years.

The statutory authorities have to discharge the statutory functions at public interest.

In the particular case, the court held that the defence what is taken by the DDA is false, and such
types of unjust litigation by the governments and statutory authorities have increased. The court
provides compensation to the complainant, and the petitioner should deposit some amount in the
Consumer Legal Aid Account of the concerned commission.

Facts:

There was an ad published by the petitioner (Delhi Development Authority/DDA) under the
Expandable Housing Scheme in 1996. The respondent (DC Sharma) paid a sum of Rs. 15,000
according to the terms and conditions of the scheme as published by the petitioner. The
respondent was allotted a flat in Narela, Delhi, and was communicated through a letter. All the
details of the flat regarding the amount was mentioned in the letter. Again, the respondent
submitted another Rs. 15,000 as the confirmation money to the petitioner.

The respondent informed the petitioner via a letter saying he has changed his residential address
and all official communication must be done via the new mentioned address. He also added that
the respondent is a government servant, and to secure a loan from his department he needs the
official mortgage permission. Later on, even after visiting the office of the petitioner, no
communication was made to the respondent.

The respondent filed an RTI to seek information regarding the same. After this preliminary inquiry,
the respondent received a letter from the petitioner saying that the flat was allotted to someone
else over time. The respondent aggrieved by the letter filed a consumer complaint under the
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, New Delhi.

Judgment:

The Hon’ble court held the petitioner is liable for unfair trade practices and causing impalpable
harassment of the respondent and imposed punitive damage amounting to Rs. 5, 00,000/- on
the petitioner and other amounts.
The court considered that the petitioner’s claim is baseless and is trying to distract the court from
the misdemeanour of the authorities. It is a way of covering up the negligence of public officials
tormenting the respondent for over ten years.

The act commissioned by DDA was against the public at large and hence the damages incurred
should be taken from the pockets of dishonest officials who are taking advantage of this
“meritless litigation”. The appeals of DDA were dismissed and the impugned order of state
commission was upheld.

Conclusion:

This case embarks upon the importance of Section 21 of the Right to Information Act. The Hon’ble
court saw through the delinquencies of the statutory department and provided relief to the
aggrieved party.

The public officials are supposed to help the aggrieved party and not take advantage of them by
performing negligent acts at cost of the general public.

Delhi Development Authority v. D.C. Sharma was called enforcement of the principle of law, and
also highlights the importance of section 21 of the Right to Information Act.

Since the statutory bodies are expected to help the aggrieved party to get justice, they have to
show the guilt or regret when their concerned officers act negligent acts or in an overbearing
manner. 

Further, court also highlighted that how and why the district court failed to see that the concerned
flat is already allotted to somebody. And DDA gave the false and baseless defence to cover up
their mistake and shifted the all blame on the complainant. 

Court also highlighted the section 24 of the RTI act and said that no provision of the RTI act
applied on the intelligence and security unless there is the violation of the human rights of any
alleged person.