( 1 ) AGAINST the common order dated 28th August, 2002 made by the learned single Judge, deciding a common question in the writ petitions the present appeals are preferred.

( 2 ) THERE was refusal on the part of the respondent-DDA to allot shops to the appellants, who were the highest bidders in the auction held by the respondent.

( 3 ) IT transpires that in the month of March, 2000 advertisement was issued by the respondent, the copy of which is placed on record at page 29 for mega sale of shops/offices on freehold basis through tender. The last date for submitting the tender was 18th April, 2000. We have considered question of one shop out of all these appeals to decide these appeals as the case of other shops are similar.

( 4 ) IN LPA No. 769 /2002 the shop No. 19 is the subject matter which is situated at CSC-6, Sector-7, Rohini, Phase-I, Delhi-110085. The shop was at ground floor admeasuring 15 sq. metres of area. The reserved price was Rs. 1,47,500/ -. The appellant and some other bidders submitted their tenders. Before the last date, corrigendum was issued by the respondent-DDA, copy of which is placed on record at page 40. There is no reference of the shop of the appellant. The corrigendum indicates changes in the shop i. e. its size and the amount, i. e. reserved price. So far as the present appellants are concerned, their shops were not included in the corrigendum. The appellant deposited 25% of the tender amount, i. e. Rs. 46,000/ -. On opening of the bids he was found to be the highest bidder and, therefore, his bid was accepted and he was called upon to pay remaining amount of Rs. 1,39,885/ -. The communication is produced on record at Annexure A4 in this behalf. The appellant deposited the said amount on 8th June, 2000. After the aforesaid amount was deposited with the respondent the appellant requested the authorities to hand over possession of the shop.

( 5 ) HOWEVER, in the month of August, 2000 appellant was served with a letter giving three options, namely: (1) To pay difference in the cost of the unit based on tender rate. (2) To opt for a shop on the basis of the area as tendered for the same in adjoining market, if available. (3) If none of the aforesaid options were acceptable, the unit would be withdrawn and the entire money will be refunded with earnest money deposited.

( 6 ) THE appellants have challenged this communication, inter alia, praying that the tender was accepted and it was admittedly as per the guidelines "as is where is basis". The guidelines are produced at page 31. Para 4a of the said guideline is required to be quoted here under:

"4a. Sale is on free hold basis and is on as is where is basis . Before filling the tender form the tenderer is advised to see the concerned kiosk/shop/office and satisfy himself. It will be deemed that the tenderer has filled in the tender after seeing the kiosk/shop/office in question. "

( 7 ) THUS, after visiting the site, namely, the shop here in the appellant submitted his tender which was accepted by the respondent and ultimately the amount was also accepted.

( 8 ) HOWEVER, it appears that later on a question was raised that as in the shop, mezzanine floor is provided and, therefore, the appellant will be required to pay the cost of that mezzanine floor also. The appellant submitted that in the original tender notice published in the newspaper area was indicated with amount to be charged on the basis of the area indicated in the public notice. Had it been the intention of the respondent to charge for the mezzanine floor, the respondent would have indicated the change in size of the shop or change in price indicating the provision for mezzanine floor, in the corrigendum. It was submitted that in the instant case though corrigendum has been issued, but in the corrigendum so far as shop of the appellant is concerned, no reference is made. It was on this basis, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was required to pay on the basis of the m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document