( 1 ). This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 30/09/1996 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. The factual matrix of the matter is not in dispute.

( 2 ). An auction was sought to be held in respect of plot No. 200 at shankar Road, New Delhi by the respondent herein. The appellant participated in the bid and became the highest bidder. The total amount of the bid was rs. 29,35,000/ -. He deposited the requisite earnest money of Rs. 7,33,750. 00. A demand notice asking for deposit of the balance amount of Rs. 22,12,095. 00 was issued in May 1995.

( 3 ). The due date for the payment of the said amount was 1/07/1995. It has been accepted by the petitioner that he was owner of plot in Block No. D-1030, New Friends Colony, New Delhi which was sold by him to one Shri Amar singh by way of General Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell dated 9/08/1978. According to him, on the date of acceptance of bid, he was neither the owner nor in possession of the said premises. The appellant, however, was under a mistaken notion that as he owned the afore-mentioned plot, he was not entitled to bid for the said plot No. 200 at Shankar Road. He, therefore, by a letter dated 21/06/1995 written to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Development alleged:

"at the time participating the bid, I did not know that even after coming into being of the conversion scheme of the government permitting conversion of lease hold property into free hold property, one can own only one residential plot/flat in the Union Territory of Delhi. This mistaken impression exists not only with me but also with everyone else in the country. However, when I enquired from the officials in D. D. A. all of them dearly told me that one could acquire only one residential plot/flat in Delhi. This means that since I already own plot No. D-1030, in The New Friends co-operative House Building Society Limited, measuring 522 sq. yds. (copy of the lease deed enclosed), i cannot own the new plot in Shanker road. I was advised by some people that I should pay the balance amount to the D. D. A. and do not disclose the fact of my owning a plot to them. I being an honest citizen cannot afford to do so. I was further advised that I may deposit the balance amount as demanded and as and when D. D. A. comes to know of the fact of my owning the flat, the money deposited by me will be refunded to me. I, however, do not want to play the games; As I cannot acquire the new plot of land legally, I would earnestly request that the money deposited by me may be refunded. "

( 4 ). On or about 7/09/1995, his afore-mentioned prayer was rejected stating:

"subject: Auction of Plot No. 200, Site No. 1, New rajinder Nagar, (Shankar Road) sir/madam, reference your representation made before the Hon ble Minister of State of Urban Affairs and employment, Govt. of India, New Delhi, for refund of earnest money deposited on 28. 3. 95 against the aforesaid plot. I am directed to inform you that your request for refund of earnest money has been rejected. The bid so given in respect of the aforesaid plot has also been rejected and the earnest money stands forfeited as per the terms and conditions of auction. "

( 5 ). Allegedly, the appellant consulted the officers of the DDA and explained that as he had already sold the said plot, he could not have been deprived of the allotment of plot No. 200 at Shankar Road wherefor he had been declared the highest bidder in a public auction. Allegedly, pursuant to or in furtherance of the advice of the officers, he deposited the balance amount of rs. 22,12,095/- with interest on 7/10/1995. The contention of the petitioner was that in terms of the extant rules, the respondent could extend the time for making payment of the balance amount of bid within a period of 180 days, and having regard to the fact that the said payment was accepted without any demur whatsoever, it was assumed that a lease deed would b