The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the dispute resolution mechanism provided in the bid document, which in this case, directed the parties to settle their disputes through arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of the instant appeal, DDA seeks to challenge the Order dated 13.07.2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Impugned Order') passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 5992/2021, titled as Shreya v. Delhi Development Authority. The learned Single Judge by way of the Order impugned herein has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent herein seeking a writ of mandamus directing the DDA to accept 25% of the reserve price which had to be deposited by the Respondent herein in pursuance to the e-auction held on 07.08.2020 for plot No.210, Pocket-1, Phase-III, Sector-25, Rohini, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the property in question').

2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the instant appeal are as under:

a. An advertisement was issued by the DDA for e-auction of residential plots on 'as is where is' basis. The Respondent herein participated in the e-auction conducted by the DDA on 07.08.2020 and she was declared a successful bidder.

b. As per the e-auction documents, the bidders had to deposit 5% of the reserve price at the first stage, i.e. before participating in the e-auction programme. 20% of the bid premium and difference of 5% reserve price had to be deposited at the second stage by successful bidder within seven days from the issuance of Letter of Intent ((hereinafter referred to as 'LoI') after acceptance of their bid by the DDA. It is also specified that if the successful bidder fails to deposit balance 20% of reserve price within 7 days then the EMD of 5% submitted at the time of participation shall be forfeited. It was also specified that the payments were to be made on-line through NEFT/RTGS/e-payment on DDA's e-auction portal.

c. It is stated that the Respondent herein was not informed regarding the LoI through e-mail. It is stated that when the Respondent herein contacted the help-desk of DDA, she was informed that an SMS had been sent to the successful bidders. It is stated that the Respondent herein was informed that the DDA has issued LoI through e-mail and the same has been uploaded on the e-auction portal as well and the Respondent herein was asked to check her registered e-mail ID and to visit the e-auction portal for more details and for accepting the LoI. It is stated that an SMS was sent to the Respondent on 26.08.2020. It is stated that in the e-auction portal it was mentioned that the payment of 20% of the reserve price of the property in question had to be made within 7 working days from 26.08.2020. It is stated that on 02.09.2020, the Respondent herein tried to deposit the money but she was unsuccessful. It is stated that the Respondent herein visited DDA's office and met various officials. It is stated that the Respondent told the officials of DDA that she had not received the LoI in respect of the property in question. It is stated that despite various communications, no proper reply was given by the DDA. It is also stated that in earlier e-auctions conducted by the DDA, extension of time to pay the amount had been granted by the DDA. It is stated that when the Respondent herein came to know that the same property is being put to subsequent auction, the Respondent herein filed W.P.(C) 5992/2021 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the DDA to accept 25% of the reserve price of the property in question.

d. The learned Single Judge vide Order impugned herein allowed the Writ Petition stating that since there is no proof of intimation of LoI by the DDA through e-mail and in the absence of such intimation, the Respondent herein cannot be made to suffer because of DDA's fault. The learned Single Judge held that the copy of the LoI which has been annexed to the affidavit neither has the name of the successful bidder nor is the plot number mentioned on the same. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the DDA that third party rights have already been created on the property in question and held that the purported cancellation of the petitioner’s bid (Respondent h