DALVEER BHANDARI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a builder in Delhi. A commercial plot No. 30, Nehru Place, District Centre, was put to auction by the respondent on January 19, 1982. The petitioner gave the highest bid of Rs, 8,13,80,000. 00 and deposited 25% of the bid amount on the fall of the hemmer. The bid was accepted on February, 19, 1982, and the decision of acceptance of same was also communicated to the petitioner according to the terms and conditions of the auction the petitioner was supposed to deposit the balance of 75% of the bid amount within 90 days. It would be appropriate to set out the relevant terms and conditions of auction of the commercial plot No. 38, Nehru Place District Centre, New Delhi, in order to determine and arrive at the conclusion who has committed the breach of the terms of auction and fault in fact lies in whose quarter, Relevant terms and conditions of auction are set out as under:- 2. Bidding at Auction and submissions of application. (i ). . . . . . . . . . (ii) The highest bidder shall at the fall of hammer pay to the Delhi Development Authority through the officer conducting the office, 25% of the bid amount as earnest money either in each or by bank draft in favor of the Delhi Development Authority, or cheque guaranteed by a Scheduled Bank as "good for payment for there, months" in favor of the Delhi Development Authority. If the earnest money is not paid the auction held in respect of that plot will be cancelled. " (vi) When the bid is accepted by the DDA, the intending purchaser shall be informed of such acceptance in writing and the intending purchaser shall within 3 months thereof, pay to the Delhi Development Authority, the balance 75% amount of the bid, in cash of by Bank Draft in favour of the Delhi Development Authority or by cheque guaranteed by a Scheduled Bank as good for payment for there months" in favour of the Delhi Development Authority. If the bid is not accepted. The earnest money will be refunded to the intending purchaser without any interest unless the earnest money is forfeited under para 2 (iv) above. "

( 2 ) IT is the admitted position that the petitioner did not pay balance 75% amount of the bid till this date much less within the stipulated period. ,

( 3 ) THE following submissions are set out which are based on the averments mentioned in the writ petition and oral submissions made during the course of the hearing of the case by Shri Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner. It would be appropriate to briefly recapitulate the revival contentions of the parties before deciding the controversy involved in the case: (a) The case of the petitioner is that the plant submitted on August 12, 1985 were in consonance with the building bye-laws but have not been sanctioned seven after the lapse of serveral years; (b) The petitioner submitted that according to the building bye-laws, by virtue of 60 days having elapsed after submission of the building plans, under the deeming, provision, therefore, received the sanction of the Delhi Development Authority and consequently. Construction carried out by the petitioner ought to be considered in accordance with the rules and regulations. (c) It was the duty of the Delhi Development Authority to have obtained permission from the Delhi Urban Art Commission, hereinafter referred to as D. U. A. C. The issuance of any letter to the petitioner by the D. U. A. C. neither shifts the sole responsibility of the Delhi Development Authority nor in any way affects the provisions of the building bye-laws about deeming sanction of the plans. (d) According to the petitioner, the respondent Delhi Development Authority failed to company with the letters from the D. U. A. C. dated September 18, 1985, and September 24, 1985 and for the faults and lapses of the Delhi Development Authority, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. (e) According to the petitioner, the Delhi Development Authority had submitted the plans for approval of the D. U. A. C. and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document