Rajkumar vs Vice Chairman And Ors

By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) Call the records of the case;

(b) Set aside and quash the impugned Office Order dated 11.09.2018;

(c) Pass any other Order(s) as it may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

The grievance of the applicant is against the order dated 11. 09.2018 vide which the respondents have passed the following orders:-

"In continuation of this office letter even No.617 dated 02.08.2018 vide which you have been directed to shift the Staff Quarter No.BG-1-A, Munirka to C-7/1 SDA, New Delhi, as was ordered by Hon"ble VC DDA from the date of issue of that letter within 8 working days but you have not vacated the Staff Quarter BG-1-A, Munirka and not taken over the possession of C-7/1 SDA New Delhi, Higher Authority has viewed it seriously.

You are therefore once again directed to vacate the staff quarter and taken over the possession of Staff Quarter No.C-7/1 SDA New Delhi immediately. This issue with the approval of Competent Authority failing which the matter will be submitted to the Competent Authority for initiate the disciplinary action against you."

2.1 While issuing the notice to the respondents, by way of interim order dated 10.10.2018, this Tribunal directed the respondents that, in the meanwhile, no coercive action may be taken against the applicant till the next date of hearing and the said interim order is continuing till the date of final hearing of this matter.

Pursuant to the notice issued to the respondents, they have stated that as per the official reports of the respondents, the applicant and his neighbor Shri Pradeep Kumar, OCM are having personal difficulties and both the families are leveling allegations against each other and this matter was referred to the Head of the Welfare Department of DDA to examine the complaints and counter complaints. According to the Welfare Inspector, who visited the locality, both the neighbourers are having personal problems against each other.

3.1 Upon examination, it has been gathered by the respondents that as per the applicant, OCM - Shri Pradeep Kumar is using his residence as a Street Dog Feeding Centre. This has been corroborated by the ex-President of the RWA and some other residents of the area, who have handed over a complaint in this regard. On the other hand, wife of Shri Pradeep Kapoor and his daughter Manisha Kapoor have refuted the allegations that they feed street/stray dogs outside their house. Neighbourers of Shri Pradeep Kapoor have endorsed their view verbally. It is also not out of place to mention that a Memo was issued to Shri Pradeep Kapoor in this regard earlier, which was responded by him refuting the allegations. He rather stated that he had got the stray dogs in the area vaccinated.

3.2 They also stated that daughter of Shri Pradeep Kapoor has given complaints against the applicant, according to which, the applicant is harassing the family of Shri Kapoor and has allegedly thrown acid on Ms. Kapoor and followed her in public places and takes video shots. During the public hearing, she also said that they have been harassed to the extent where she contemplated committing suicide. An FIR in this regard has also been lodged.

3.3 They also stated that it is apparent that both the parties are having regular altercations in the neighborhood. Due to the allegation mentioned by Ms. Manisha Kapoor, it was deemed prudent to provide an alternative accommodation in the nearby locality to the applicant, who is presently living in a Type-II Flat but is eligible for Type-III/IV Flat. At the same time, memo was issued to Shri Pradeep Kapoor OCM that strict action would be taken against him as per rules if further complaints are received against him. The enquiry team met the neighbourhood families and discussed about the quarrels between the residents of staff quarter No.BG-1 and BG-II at Munirka. During enquiry most of the neighbors refused to give written versions.

3.4 They also stated that they also gathered that there are no type-II vacant flats in Ber Sarai, however, some type-III and IV flats were vacant in Ber Sarai and in Safdarjung Development Area. The present flat which is occupied by the applicant in Munirka is in the ground floor. The matter was accordingly placed before the Vice-Chairman DDA, who ordered that applicant may be asked to give his option for any type-III/IV vacant staff quarters at Ber Sarai and Safdarjung Development Area and he be accordingly directed to shift to the new accommodation. The applicant was thus allotted staff quarter No.C7/1/ SDA in the ground floor and directed to vacate staff quarter No.BG-I, Munirka.

3.5 The respondents also stated that the staff quarter bearing No.C-7/1, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi was allotted to the applicant on the basis of complaint made by the neighbouring family of Shri Pradeep Kapoor (OCM) keeping in view guidelines of Directorate of Estates issued vide OM No.12035/16/2005-PoI dated 06.09.2005 pertaining to shifting of residents in case of quarrels between neighbours, as both are DDA Officials, living in the same locality and leveling charges against each other"s.

From the rejoinder filed by the applicant, it is evidently clear that there is personal problems between the applicant and his neighbour Shri Pradeep Kapoor.

When this matter was taken up for hearing, this Tribunal raised a query to the learned counsel for the applicant when it is clearly established by the pleadings of both the parties on record that there is certain personal problems between the applicant and his neighbour Shri Pradeep Kapoor and in such eventuality, what is wrong in the action of the respondents vide which they directed the applicant to shift from Staff Quarter No.BG-1-A, Munirka to C-7/1 SDA, New Delhi on the basis of the guidelines of Directorate of Estate issued vide OM No.12035/16/2005-PoL dated 06.09.2005, counsel for the applicant submitted that the DDA has wrongly and illegally punished the applicant for raising his voice against Dog Menace which has put the entire society at peril and health hazards and thus the action of the DDA is unjust and without jurisdiction.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after receipt of the complaint and counter complaints, the report of the Welfare Inspector was sought and thereafter the matter was placed before the Vice Chairman, DDA for appropriate action in the matter and upon approval of the Vice Chairman, DDA, the respondents have issued the Allotment order dated 2.8.2018 vide which the applicant"s allotment was being converted from Staff Quarter (Type-2) to Type-3) and upon conversion, the applicant was directed to shift from BG-1A, Munirka to C-7/1, Safdarjung Development Area within 8 working days. Counsel further submitted that when the applicant has not complied with the aforesaid order, the respondents have passed the order dated 11.9.2018, which he has impugned in this OA.

6.1 Lastly counsel reiterated that the impugned order is passed by the competent authority on the basis of the guidelines of Directorate of Estate issued vide OM No.12035/16/2005-PoL dated 06.09.2005.

We have also perused the aforesaid OM dated 6.9.2005 on the subject of shifting of residents in case of quarrels between neighbours at page 43 of the paperbook. Clause (2) of the said OM provides that if the allottee of Government accommodation was found guilty would be shifted to another quarter in the same locality but at a distance from the residence of the allottee with whom he had picked up quarrel, or to another nearby or remote locality depending upon the nature of the offence. From the pleadings of the applicant, it is clear that applicant has not alleged any malafide against the Vice-Chairman, DDA, who after assessing the matter gave its approval to shift the applicant as communicated to the applicant vide order dated 2.8.2018. When the applicant has not complied with the aforesaid order, the respondents have passed the order dated 11.9.2018. This Tribunal is of the view that when the decision was taken by the respondents with the approval of the competent authority on the basis of the guidelines of Directorate of Estate issued vide OM No.12035/16/2005-PoL dated 06.09.2005, this Tribunal is not inclined to interfere in the matter as the respondents have fairly allotted an alternative accommodation to the applicant which is of a higher category and in an area very close to his present allotted accommodation and that all their actions have been carried out to ensure that the claims of the accommodation of the applicant are in no way prejudiced. Rather the applicant should be happy to shift to the larger and better accommodation where his peace of mind will not be disturbed. Hence, the respondents are directed to take further steps as per law, if the applicant does not vacate the said premises as directed by them vide order dated 2.8.2018 and 11.9.2018.

In the result, the OA is dismissed as being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs.