SUNANDA BHANDARE J.

( 1 ) RULE D. B.

( 2 ) SINCE. A very short point-is involved we proceed to decide the wr ite petition finally.

( 3 ) PLOT No. 48/7 measuring 501. 66 mts. in E Block, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 11,new Delhi was auctioned by the respondent-Delhi Development Authority by way of a public auction held on 22. 10. 1984 The petitioner, a partnership fiim made- the highest bid for the sum ofs 74,ooo. 00. The petitioner paid. a sum of Rs. 2 lacs at the fall of the hammer, on 14. l2. 1984 the Delhi Development Authority issued a letter to the petitioner confirming acceptance of its bid by Vice-Chairman and asked the petitioner to deposit the balance sum of Rs. 5,40,11. 00. By another letter dated 31. 12. 1984 the respondent Delhi Development Authority informed the petitioner that the due date for payment of the balance amount was 13. 1. 1985 The petitioner however did not make the payment and vide letter dated 11. l. 1985 prayed that since the petitioner had suffered in the riots of November 1984 the time for deposit of the balance bid amount be extended. The respondent however on 20. 2. 1985 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the bid may not be cancelled for the breach of the terms and conditions of the auction. The petitioner vide letter dated 6. 3. 1985 informed the respondent that the business of the petitioner was affected due to riots that took place in Delhi after the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, Therefore, the petitioner was facing certain financial paucity. However, the petitioner had deposited a further sum of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 on 5. 3 1985 and informed the respondent that the petitioner would deposit the balance amount of Rs 2,90,011. 00 before end of April 1985. The petitioner thus prayed for exiension of lime till the end of April 1985 for the deposit of the amount. On 10. 9. 1985 the petitioner received a letter from the respondent for personal appearance on 16 9. 1985. The representative of the petitioner met the concerned authority on that day and explained the reason for the delay in depositing the balance amount. By another letter dated 31. 10. 1985 the petitioner informed the respondent that a further sum ofrs. 75,000. 00 had been paid and the petitioner has applied for loan and, therefore further time be extended The respondent on 23. 11. 1985 replied to the letter of the petitioner dated 6. 3 1985 and asked the petitioner to furnish evidence of being riot victim. The petitioner on 9. 12 1985 informed the respondent that the petitioner was willing to pay interest for the delayed payment and also by letter dated 16-6. 1986 reiterated that the petitioner being riot victim, the plot be released to the petitioner. Affidavit in support of being riot victim was also furnished on 24. 9. 1986. The respondent thereafter on 29. 12. 1986 informed the petitioner that since the petitioner bad failed to deposit 75% of the balance premium towards the plot, the aution bid was cancelled vide letter dated 9 12. 1986 and the earnest money deposited by the petitioner stood forfeited. The petitioner thereafter sought the review of the order dated 9. 12. 1986. The respondent however did not send any reply to the said representation and, therefore, the petitioner has filed this present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) IT was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has in other cases extended the time in deposising the balance of the bid money ard, therefore, the petitioner being a riot victim ought to have also been given further time to deposit the balance bid amount Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Relfable Laboratories (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority, (43) 1991 DLT 312. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the respondent be restrained from re-auctioning the said plot and be directed to give possession of the plot to the petitioner sinc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document