1990 Supreme(Del) 424
High Court Of Delhi
RELIABLE LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
Civil 82 of 1987
Decided On : 12/21/1990
A.K.SUDHARKAR RAO, SANJAY DHOKALIA, Vijay Kishan
The court upheld the principle that acceptance of bid amount without valid grounds for cancellation entitles the bidder to possession of the property.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Possession of Industrial Plot - Indian Companies Act - Article 226 - 226(1) - 84/4, Block D, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi - Civil Writ No. 2771 of 1986
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought possession of an industrial plot in Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi, after participating in an auction and depositing the bid amount. The respondents cancelled the bid due to alleged non-payment, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents had accepted the bid amount and failed to provide a valid explanation for cancelling the bid after accepting the amount and receiving a notice from the petitioners claiming damages.
Issues: The main issue was the cancellation of the bid for the industrial plot despite the petitioners depositing the bid amount and the respondents accepting the amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments and found that the petitioners were entitled to possession of the plot based on the respondents' actions and the precedent set by similar cases.
Final Decision: The writ was allowed, and the respondents were directed to hand over possession of the plot to the petitioners within two months, with the lease deed to be executed in favor of the petitioners within one month thereafter.
( 1 ) BY way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed that the order dated 4th December, 1986 mentioned in the letter dated 18th December, 1986 issued by Deputy Director (Industrial), Delhi Development Authority be quashed and that the writ of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to hand over possession of plot No. 88/4, Block D, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner No. 2 is the managing director of the petitioner No. I which is a registered company under the Indian Companies Act. It started a small manufacturing unit in Okhia for making liquid oral formulations under licence from the Drug Control, Delhi. According to the averments made in the petition industrial plot No. 88/4, Block D measuring 202. 88 sq. mts. in the Okhia Industrial Area Phase I New Delhi was put for auction on 8th August, 1984. The petitioner gave a bid for Rs. 3 lacs. At the time of the bid a sum of Rs. 75,000. 00 deposited as a part of the sale price. The balance amount was not deposited and so a letter dated 10th December 1984 was issued to the petitioner for the deposit of the balance amount. An application was moved by the petitioner for extension of time which was followed by a subsequent application. A show cause notice dated 20th February 1985 was issued to the petitioners by the Deputy Director (Industrial) Delhi Development Authority to show cause within 15 days from the date of issue of the notice as to why the bid of the plot may not be cancelled for the breach of the terms and conditions about the payment of the amount. Reply was filed by the petitioners praying for further time. In the meantime, the petitioners paid a sum of Rs. 1. 45,00 ( ). 00 with the letter dated 3rd January 1986. The balance amount of Rs. 80,011. 00 was deposited with the respondents and intimation was sent vide letter dated 13th January 1986. The petitioner could not get possession of the plot in question and it appears that a notice was served upon the respondents claiming a sum of Rs. l,60,000. 00 as damages besides making prayer for the giving of the possession. Subsequently, the impugned letter dated 18th December 1986 has been issued to the petitioners staling therein that as the amount was not received from the petitioners within the stipulated period the allotment/auction bid was cancelled vide order dated 4th December, 1986. It is in pursuance of this intimation received by the petiioners that they have filed this writ petition.
( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
( 4 ) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been that the petitioners deposited the total bidamount much prior to the date of the alleged cancellation of the bid/auction, and that the amount deposited by the petitioner is being kept and utilised by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the factum of the amount having been deposited by the petitioners. It has, however, been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents have been ready and willing to refund the amount regarding which an offer even was made in July 1990 i. e. much after the issue of Rule in this case.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there have been instances where the respondents have been extending the time for the deposit of the balance auction money but in the instant case, the same has been declined only after the respondents had accepted the deposit of the total amount. The petitioners had by way of additional affidavit given instances where the respondents accepted the amount after extending the period. One such instance as contained in the affidavit of Ms. Janak Juneja, Secretary, Delhi Development Authority sworn on 24th May 1989 relates to plot No. 2, Commercial Complex, Wazirpur, Delhi. In t