The petitioner, who initially applied for a flat under the MIG category in the Housing New Registration Scheme of 1976, faced a series of administrative hurdles over the years. After a prolonged wait and in light of the Rohini Residential Scheme's provisions, he transferred his registration, but ultimately faced cancellation and confusion regarding his eligibility for allotment.

In 2012, despite being declared eligible in a draw of lots for a plot in Rohini, the petitioner found himself without a demand-cum-allotment letter. Following his grievances, the case was brought before the court, and it highlighted significant issues, including delays in processing, miscommunication, and the failure of the administrative body to uphold its responsibilities.

The petitioner argued that the rejection of his request for the allotment was flawed, primarily on the grounds of inadequate communication regarding the cancellation of his registration. The authorities claimed that his application for cancellation was accepted in 1991, yet the petitioner contended he had never received formal notification of this decision.

In contrast, the respondents emphasized that the cancellation was voluntary and thus barred the petitioner from claiming any allotment rights. They invoked the doctrine of delay and laches, suggesting that the prolonged inactivity on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his claim undermined his position.

The court meticulously examined the submissions from both parties. It acknowledged that the petitioner had not acted to maintain his rights following the cancellation, which the competent authority had formally accepted. The court pointed out that despite receiving the cancellation notification, the petitioner did not pursue the matter until years later, which raised questions about his intention and diligence in seeking redress. The doctrine of delay and laches was central to the court’s reasoning. This legal principle asserts that a party's inaction over a significant period can bar them from obtaining relief, particularly if it may cause prejudice to other parties or disrupt administrative processes. The court emphasized that allowing stale claims could undermine the integrity of housing allocation processes and disadvantage other deserving applicants.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, concluding that the petitioner could not claim a vested right to the allotment based on outdated and improperly maintained records. However, it also ordered that the original booking amount be refunded with interest, reflecting a recognition of the administrative body's failures.

This case serves as a potent reminder of the critical interplay between individual rights and administrative responsibility. It underscores the importance of timely communication and the necessity for applicants to actively pursue their claims to avoid falling prey to the pitfalls of delay. As seen here, the legal landscape surrounding housing allotments remains fraught with complexities, necessitating vigilance and proactive engagement from all stakeholders involved.