( 1 ) WE had pronounced the operative order in this writ petition on 21. 12. 1990. The detailed reasons are as follows.

( 2 ) M/s, Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. , the petitioners, are well known builders of Delhi. A land ad-measuring 2540 sq. meters was allotted to them by auction by (he D. D. A. on 810. 1980. The auction was of a commercial plot in Jhandewalan block known as the Commercial Tower Plot. Petitioners bid for Rs. 9. 82 crores was accepted and the petitioners paid a sum of Rs- 2. 45,75,000. 00 being 25 per cent of the bid amount that very day. Even after repeated opportunities by the D. D. A. and the Court only part of the amount has been paid and as on 31st July, 1990, a sum of Rs. 8,12,68,798. 00 is still unpaid by the petitioner. This amount includes part of the principal and interest for delayed payment. Through the interim orders of this Court the petitioners have got their plans approved and got the no-objection certificate for the construction. The complex will have about 870 commercial shops. The building upto the First Floor is completed. The petitioners prayer is to permit them to continue with the construction and give a bank guarantee (and not the actual payment) for the sum of over Rs. 8. 0 crores due against them. The D. D. A. is vehemently against further delay in the payment (which ought to have been completed 10 years back according to the terms of the auction), and does not accept the bank guarantee.

( 3 ) MR. KAPIL Sibal, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the D. D. A. submits that the Supreme Court has more than once deprecated the practice of granting interim orders on furnishing back guarantee in collecting government dues. The position is correct In Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Limited (1985 V. 154) ITR Page 172, the Supreme Court has summarised the previous decisions and held ;

"governments are not run on mere bank guarantees. Very often some Courts act as if furnishing a bank guarantee would meet the ends of Justice. No governmtal business or for that matter no business of any kind can be run on mere bank guarantees. Liquid cash is necessary for the running of a government as indeed any, other enterprise. "

"where matters of public revenue are concerned, it is of the utmost importance to realise that interim orders ought not to be granted merely because a prima facie case has been shown. More is required. The balance of convenience must be clearly in favour of the making of an interim order and there should cot be the slightest indication of a likelihood of a prejudice to the public interest. "

"we can take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are field solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolonging the proceedings by one device or other. The practise certainly needs to be strongly discouraged. "

"we deprecate the practice of granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason than that a prima facie case has been made out. without b. . ing concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other relevant considerations. "

( 4 ) THE petitioners filed the present writ petition on 2. 8 1989, praying for a writ of mandamus directing respondent D. DA. to sanction the building plan forthwith, or in the alternative to grant permission to start construction at the cost and risk of the petitioners.

( 5 ) MR. KAPIL Sibal, counsel for the DD. A. , by taking us through the various orders passed by the D B. (Kirpal and Chaudhry JJ.) has submitted that the principal reliefs of sarction of plan and permission for construction was done through the interim orders, but the quesition of the payment of outstanding amount of over the Rs 8. 0 crores was deferred from time to time. Finally, by the order dated 19th March. 1990 the D. B. ordered that the quantum of money and the mode of payment will be de