The Court emphasized the importance of equity and good conscience in contractual matters and the maintainability of writ petitions for asserting contractual rights against the State.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.

1. The present Appeal has been filed impugning the Judgment dated 24.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 7167 of 2021 [hereinafter called "Impugned Judgment"], whereby the Appellant/Delhi Development Authority [hereinafter called "DDA"] has been directed to execute a Conveyance Deed in respect of the Plot No.58, Pocket-P at EPDP Colony (CR Park), New Delhi-110019 [hereinafter called "Plot"] in favour of the Respondent.

2. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge has inter-alia set aside order/letter dated 14.07.2021 passed by DDA [hereinafter called "Cancellation Letter"], which rejected the bid and cancelled the allotment of the Plot to the Respondent. It was additionally directed by the learned Single Judge that the bid amount to be paid by the Respondent be accepted with a rebate of 15% on a pro-rata basis on account of the variation in the size of the Plot.

3. The brief facts in issue are:

(i) On 26.06.2019, pursuant to an e-Auction organised by the DDA, the Respondent was declared to be highest bidder in respect of the Plot. Upon an inspection conducted by the Respondent of the Plot by an Architect, it was found that there was a variation of more than 15% in the area of the Plot. This was confirmed by the DDA's Engineering Department on 16.11.2019 and the actual area of the Plot was found to be 112 sq. metres as against the 139.07 sq. metres. The Respondent accordingly addressed communication dated 19.08.2019 to the DDA inter-alia seeking a reduction in the value of the Plot on a pro-rata basis.

(ii) The DDA by its letter dated 21.08.2019 issued a Letter of Intent [hereinafter called "LOI"] in favour of the Respondent declaring him to be the successful bidder in respect of the Plot.

(iii) The Respondent complied with all requirements of the LOI by depositing the requisite amounts on 27.08.2019. However, once again the grievance in respect of the size of the Plot was raised by the Respondent by its letter dated 29.08.2019.

(iv) Ignoring the Respondent's grievance, DDA issued an allotment-cum-demand letter dated 07.10.2019 [hereinafter called "Allotment Letter"] requiring the Respondent to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,55,21,756/- within 90 days.

(v) It seems thereafter, that the Respondent's repeated correspondences were ignored by DDA. However, the Respondent deposited all requisite amounts in terms of the Allotment Letter in time, albeit, under protest. Simultaneously, Respondent also submitted letter dated 01.01.2020 requesting for a refund to be made to him, calculated after revision of the value of the Plot on a pro-rata basis. This request was repeated by the Respondent subsequently as well.

(vi) On 26.08.2020, DDA remitted Rs.3,40,28,949/- to the bank account of the Respondent without any prior intimation or written information, thereby effectively cancelling the allotment.

(vii) Aggrieved by this action of DDA, the Respondent filed a petition being W.P.(C) 7181 of 2020. By its order dated 29.09.2020 [hereinafter called "Order in the First Petition"], the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed the petition, directing DDA to treat the petition as a representation and give its decision on the issues raised by the Respondent, keeping in mind the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gaurav Enterprises vs Delhi Development Authority, 1997(43) DRJ 13.

(viii) In terms of the directions of the Court, the Respondent was given a personal hearing by DDA on 05.02.2021 and he also filed a letter dated 05.02.2021, wherein, inter-alia, the Respondent gave his consent for accepting the allotment of the Plot with a 15% rebate in cost calculated on a pro-rata basis.

(ix) However, by the Cancellation Letter, DDA rejected the Respondent's request for allotment of the Plot at 85% of the bid amount, which led to the Respondent approaching this Court by way of a second writ petition being W.P.(C) 7167 of