Veerappan & Anr. Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board through the Chief Executive Officer (Dusib) & Ors.

¶1

$~141

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7344/2025 and CM APPL.33020/2025 (Stay)

¶4

VEERAPPAN & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Shreya Munoth, Ms. Aswasthi Menon and Ms. Asawari Sodhi, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD THROUGH THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (DUSIB) & ORS.

¶7

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi and Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Advocates for DUSIB. Ms. Rachita Garg and Mr. Agam Rajput, Advocates for R-2/PWD. Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Standing Counsel for DDA along with Ms. Harshita Rai and Ms. Kavya Shukla, Advocates for DDA.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

¶10

CM APPL.33021/2025 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

The application stands disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 7344/2025

¶14

The present petition assails the order dated 06.05.2025 (hereinafter ‘ the impugned order ’) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB / respondent no.1), by which, the order

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 01/07/2025 at 22:41:11

¶17

dated 07.04.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, DUSIB has been set aside and the claim of the petitioner no.2 (wife of petitioner no.1) for rehabilitation under the Delhi Slum Jhuggi Jhopri Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 (hereinafter ‘ the DUSIB Policy, 2015 ’) has been rejected.

¶18

The petitioners claim to be residents of the ‘Madrasi Camp’ jhuggi jhopri basti, Jangpura (hereinafter ‘ Madrasi Camp ’) which is a protected basti under the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 (DUSIB Act).

¶19

The petitioners had sought for rehabilitation / allotment of alternative dwelling unit under the DUSIB Policy, 2015 against the Joint Survey No. SS 34/37. Vide communication dated 27.11.2024 issued by the Eligibility Determination Committee (EDC), the petitioners were declared ineligible for rehabilitation under the DUSIB Policy, 2015 on account of the fact that the petitioners had “failed to produce any of the 12 prescribed documents issued in the name of the applicant or spouse prior to 01.01.2015”.

¶20

Aggrieved by the said decision, petitioner no.2 (wife of petitioner no.1) filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, DUSIB. Vide order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, DUSIB, the said appeal came to be allowed and the petitioner no.2 was found eligible for rehabilitation under the DUSIB Policy, 2015 on account her producing the electricity bill with energisation date of 25.02.2012, being one of the prescribed documents in terms of the DUSIB Policy, 2015. The relevant portion of the order dated 07.04.2025 reads as under –

¶21

“ The appeal was heard by the Appellate Authority. Appellant has now produced electricity bill with energisation date 25.02.2012 as one of the 12 prescribed document.

¶22

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 01/07/2025 at 22:41:11

¶23

Hence the appeal is accepted and she is declared eligible, subject to verification of electricity bill .”

¶24

Thereafter, the said order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority came to be placed before the CEO, DUSIB (respondent no.1) in terms of Para 3(vi) of Part B of the DUSIB Policy, 2015. Vide impugned order dated 06.05.2025, the respondent no.1 proceeded to set aside the order dated 07.04.2025 on the ground that the electricity connection, with respect to which the electricity bill was produced before the Appellate Authority for claiming eligibility for rehabilitation under the DUSIB Policy, 2015, was found to have been disconnected on 19.03.2017. The operative portion of the said order reads as under –

¶25

“5. l have carefully gone through the orders of Appdlate Authority dated 07.04.2025, material on record and the extant policy guidelines. Accordingly, the following is observed:

¶26

5 (i) Appeal was accepted subject to verification of Electricity bill produced by applicant. As per verification report dated 25.04.2025 the electricity connection was disconnected on 19.03.2017.

¶27

“As per clause l (vi) part-B of policy dated 11.12.2017, "Jhuggi Jhopri dweller must possess any one of the 12 documents issued before 01.01.2015”.

¶28

6. Thus, it is clear that the said appeal was decided in favour of the Appellant/Claimant which is a clear violation of the clause l(vi) part-B of the Relocation Policy-2015 and the Appellate Authority ignored the eligibility criteria for allotment of alternative dwelling unit.

¶29

Hence, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 07.04.2025 is set aside and the claim of the appellant/claimant is rejected.”

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the aforesaid electricity bill, the petitioners are also in possession of certain other documents such as Aadhar Card issued on 22.11.2011 in favour of the petitioner no.1 [appended as Annexure P-17] and an Electoral Photo Identity Card issued on 01.12.2005 in favour of the petitioner no.1 [appended as

¶31

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 01/07/2025 at 22:41:11

¶32

Annexure P-18] which were not even considered by the Appellate Authority or the CEO, DUSIB while considering the case of the petitioner for eligibility under the DUSIB Policy 2015.

¶33

Issue notice. 10. Learned counsel, as aforesaid, accept notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶34

In the present case, the Appellate Authority has observed in the order dated 07.04.2025 that the electricity bill with date of energisation as 25.02.2012 qualifies as one of the 12 documents prescribed under the DUSIB Policy, 2015 for claiming rehabilitation thereunder. Consequently, the petitioner no.2 was found eligible for rehabilitation under the DUSIB Policy, 2015 by the Appellate Authority.

¶35

The CEO, DUSIB (respondent no.1) has proceeded to set aside the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority only on the basis that the electricity connection of the petitioners was found to have been disconnected on 19.03.2017. However, the relevant provisions of the policy [Paragraph 2 of Part B of the DUSIB Policy, 2015¹ ] only contemplate that a person claiming rehabilitation shall possess any of the 12 documents enlisted therein, issued prior to the cut-off date (i.e. 01.01.2015). The said requirement was evidently satisfied in the present case. The aspect of disconnection of the said electricity connection on 19.03.2017, and the

¶36

1 2. As envisaged in Para 1 (vi) above, the JJ dweller must possess any one of the following documents issued before 01.01.2015 to become eligible for the purpose of allotment of dwelling unit: (i) Passport;

¶37

(ii) Ration Card with photograph;

¶38

(iii) electricity bill;

¶39

(iv) Driving license;

¶40

(v) Identity Card Card/Smart Card with photograph issued by State/Central Government and/or its Autonomous Bodies/Agencies like PSU/Local Bodies (except EPIC); …..

¶41

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 01/07/2025 at 22:41:11

¶42

consequence thereof, ought to have been considered and dealt with by the Appellate Authority. Besides, the petitioner is in possession of other documents as well (as noted hereinabove) which were not taken note of by the Appellate Authority.

¶43

This Court has also taken a prima facie view vide order dated 20.05.2025 in W.P.(C) 6746/2025 that it is not for the CEO, DUSIB to upset a quasi-judicial determination by the Appellate Authority which is specially constituted under Paragraph 3 of Part B of the DUSIB Policy, 2015 for the purpose of determining eligibility for allotment of alternate dwelling unit for rehabilitation and relocation under the DUSIB Policy, 2015.

¶44

In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 is set aside.

¶45

Considering the categorical submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were in possession of various documents, rendering them eligible for rehabilitation under the DUSIB Policy, 2015, the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority for re-assessing the eligibility of the petitioners.

¶46

In case, the petitioners are able to produce the requisite documents and in case the Appellate Authority is satisfied with the veracity and genuineness thereof, an appropriate decision be taken by the Appellate Authority, DUSIB.

¶47

Let the proceedings before the Appellate Authority be completed within a period of two weeks.

¶48

In case the Appellate Authority finds the petitioners are eligible for rehabilitation under the DUSIB Policy 2015, the petitioners shall necessarily be entitled to the same benefits which are being afforded to all the other

¶49

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 01/07/2025 at 22:41:11

¶50

beneficiaries under DUSIB Policy, 2015.

¶51

The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application is also disposed of.

¶52

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶53

MAY 26, 2025

¶54

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 01/07/2025 at 22:41:11

Veerappan & Anr. v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board through the Chief Executive Officer (Dusib) & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerappan & Anr. v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board through the Chief Executive Officer (Dusib) & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S a.P.Apparels Vs the Labour Commissioner & Ors.

Siddhartha Kothari Vs Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation 3 & Anr.

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Vs Vodafone Idea Limited

Sahil Arora Vs Commissioner of Excise, Entt. and Luxury Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.

M v Metals through Its Proprietor Mr. Rahul Jain 2018 19 Vs Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others

Chetan Asrani Vs the Sales Tax Officer Class II Ward 96

S G N Public School Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Gmr Rajamundhry Energy Ltd. & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Vs Vodafone Idea Limited

Sahil Arora Vs Commissioner of Excise, Entt. and Luxury Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.

Al Muqaddas Tours and Travels Vs Union of India

Real Capital Towers Private Limited & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Master Aavish Dahate & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs Union of India through Ministry Micro Small and Medium Enterprise & Ors.