Disposed¶19

Manju v. Delhi Devlopment Authority and Ors.

Delhi HC10 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/2964/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226 writ against show cause notice; maintainability/prematurity of writ petition challenging SCN; Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28 relied upon; DDA PMAY In-Situ Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, Kalkaji; EWS flat E-Draw allotment, UR category; Demand-cum-Allotment letter, Rs. 1,47,400/- deposit; show cause notice dated 30.01.2026 for cancellation of allotment; petitioners' reply dated 09.02.2026; adjudication by Vice-Chairman (VC), DDA; speaking order passed; petition infructuous; disposed of with liberty to challenge speaking order; Jasmeet Singh, J; decided 10.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petition disposed of as infructuous along with pending applications, with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the speaking order once communicated; no interim relief; merits not examined.

Manju Vs Delhi Devlopment Authority and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 challenging the DDA show cause notice dated 30.01.2026 (for cancellation of the petitioners' allotted flat) is maintainable. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

It is settled law that writ petitions challenging show cause notices are ordinarily not maintainable; the party receiving a show cause notice must first raise all objections before the authority issuing it.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The present petition, filed against the show cause notice dated 30.01.2026, is not maintainable; the petitioners have already responded to the impugned show cause notice.

¶14

Key takeaways

Since the show cause notice dated 30.01.2026 has already been adjudicated and a speaking order passed, the petition has become infructuous.ratio¶16
The petitioners are at liberty to challenge the speaking order as and when it is communicated to them.ratio¶17
The Court has not examined the merits and demerits of the controversy.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J): Writ petition under Article 226 by allottees of an EWS flat (Flat No. E-362, Block-E, Asha Kiran Apartments, Kalkaji) allotted through DDA's PMAY / In-Situ Slum Rehabilitation Scheme E-Draw, seeking quashing of DDA's show cause notice dated 30.01.2026 for cancellation of the allotment. HELD: (i) per settled law, relying on Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, writ petitions against mere show cause notices are ordinarily not maintainable, objections being required to be raised first before the issuing authority; (ii) the petition against the notice dated 30.01.2026 was accordingly not maintainable, the petitioners having already responded to it; and (iii) as the notice stood adjudicated by the Vice-Chairman, DDA with a speaking order passed, the petition had become infructuous. Petition disposed of along with pending applications; petitioners at liberty to challenge the speaking order when communicated; merits and demerits not examined.

¶1

$~106

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2964/2026 & CM APPL. 14326/2026

¶4

MRS. MANJU & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Anil kumar Gupta, Ms. Nancy Gupta, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Through: Ms. Latika Malhotra, Adv. for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 10.03.2026 CM APPL. 14327/2026

¶12

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

The application is disposed of.

¶14

W.P.(C) 2964/2026

¶15

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers: -

¶16

“a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing and setting aside the Show Cause Notice dated 30.01.2026 issued by the Respondent/DDA, being arbitrary, malicious, and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice; and

¶17

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ order/s directing the Respondents not to act upon the allegations contained in the said Show Cause Notice dated

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 18/03/2026 at 16:33:07

¶20

30.01.2026 forthwith and to Withdraw any proceedings initiated for the cancellation of allotment of Flat No. E- 362; 3rd floor, Block-E, Pocket 14-A, Asha Kiran Apartments, Kalkaji, New Delhi- 110019, or in the alternative, in case the Respondents claim that the said flat stands already Cancelled than direct the respondents to re-allot the same flat to the petitioners; and

¶21

c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition/ or any other appropriate writ/orders/direction thereby restraining the Respondents, their officials, or agents from creating third party interest or from taking any coercive action, including dispossession or sealing of the Petitioner's premises, during the pendency of the present petition; and

¶22

d) Issue appropriate direction for an Independent Inquiry into the conduct of the concerned officials regarding thecorruption and malpractice adopted by them in the allotment process complained of by the Petitioners; and

¶23

e) Grant an Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Stay on the operation of the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 30.01.2026 until the final disposal of this petition;

¶24

f) Cost of litigation may be awarded in favour of the petitioners and direct the respondents to pay the cost to petitioners. …”

¶25

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were living in Jhuggi No. B-108, Navjeevan Camp, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 18/03/2026 at 16:33:07

¶28

The Delhi Development Authority (“ DDA” ) i.e., respondent No. 1 launched a PMAY / In- Situ Slum Rehabilitation Scheme at Kalkaji area for the residents of the aforesaid camp. DDA conducted an E-Draw for allotment of EWS flats, wherein the name of petitioner No.1 came in UR category at Kalkaji, Pocket A-14, Flat no. E-362, Block-E.

¶29

On 23.12.024 a Demand-cum-Allotment letter was issued in the name of petitioners with the direction to deposit the cost of Rs. 1,47,400/-, which was deposited by petitioners. Subsequently, physical possession was handed over to the petitioners.

¶30

Later, officials of respondents wanted to conduct an inspection in the premises of the petitioners for seeing whether the premises are being used by the petitioners or have been sublet or rented out.

¶31

Subsequently, the respondents sent a show cause notice dated 30.01.2026 for cancellation of the allotted flat of the petitioners, which the petitioners replied vide letter dated 09.02.2026.

¶32

Hence, the present petition.

¶33

Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the respondents misbehaved with the petitioners.

¶34

For the said reasons, issue notice.

¶35

Ms. Malhotra, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the DDA and states that the action of DDA official’s was in terms of DDA policy.

¶36

I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶37

The present writ petition seeks to challenge the show cause notice dated 30.01.2026.

¶38

The law with regard to maintainability of writs challenging show cause

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

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 18/03/2026 at 16:33:07

¶41

notices is no longer res integra . It is settled law that writ petitions challenging show cause notices are not maintainable as the party receiving show cause notice shall first raise all objections before the authority issuing the said show cause notice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 , held as under:-

¶42

“14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.

¶43

15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the

¶44

This is a digitally signed order.

¶45

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 18/03/2026 at 16:33:07

¶46

High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. ”

¶47

The present petition has been filed against the show cause notice dated 30.01.2026 and as such the present petition cannot be maintainable. Further, the petitioners have already responded to the impugned show cause notice.

¶48

Ms. Malhotra, learned counsel for DDA, states that the show cause notice has duly been adjudicated by the Vice-Chairman (VC), DDA and the official communication will be issued to the petitioners within one week from today.

¶49

Since the petition is challenging the show cause notice dated 30.01.2026 and as per the status report of the learned counsel for DDA, the same has already been adjudicated and a speaking order has already been passed, the petition has become infructuous.

¶50

The petitioners are at liberty to challenge the speaking order as and when the same is communicated to the petitioners.

¶51

The Court has not examined the merits and the demerits of the controversy.

¶52

The present petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms, along with pending applications if any.

¶53

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶54

MARCH 10, 2026/sp

¶55

This is a digitally signed order.

¶56

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 18/03/2026 at 16:33:07

Manju v. Delhi Devlopment Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju v. Delhi Devlopment Authority and 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

Vaibhav Chauhan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Raj Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Ors.

Gaurav Dutt Sharma Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Heeric Vs Rbl Bank & Ors.

Kamla Devi Jain Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Jai Parkash Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Indraprashta Gas Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Onkar Nath Vs Delhi Development Authority

Alfisha Arif & Ors. Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Murlidhar & Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Ramesh Vs Delhi Development Authority

Bansur Mahavidhyalaya & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Divya Chaudhary Mother of the Minor Inesh Vs Directorate of Education Ors. & Ors.

Dr. Kritika Anand Vs Union of India & Ors.