The court upheld that failure to act on granted extensions in an auction context forfeits eligibility for further relief, emphasizing bid terms create binding obligations.

JUDGMENT

D.N. Patel, Chief Justice (oral)

CM APPL. 39266/2021 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

LPA 419/2021 & CM APPL. 39265/2021 (Stay)

1. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the judgement and order dated 20.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.10331/2020, the Original Petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Appellant had approached the learned Single Judge seeking a direction to the Respondent/DDA to extend the time for depositing 75% of the balance amount and issue a fresh Demand Notice. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on a short ground that the DDA by its Circular dated 02.12.2020 had granted further time to all similarly placed persons to make payments by 31.12.2020. The Circular was notified on the DDA's website and despite the extension of time, Appellant did not take the benefit and make payment and instead chose to file a writ petition on 13.11.2020.

3. We have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have looked into the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Brief facts relevant to the present appeal are that Respondent/DDA issued online advertisement for e-auction of some residential properties on 10.08.2019. Appellant deposited 5% EMD i.e. Rs.7,00,859/-on 06.09.2019 for auction of "Residential Plot No. 6, Pocket B-1, Sector-29, Rohini, Delhi." On 11.09.2019, during the online bidding, Appellant emerged as a highest bidder for the plot in question and the total value of the plot was Rs.2,41,66,000/-.

5. Letter of Intent was issued by Delhi Development Authority in favour of the Appellant on 04.12.2019. On 09.12.2019, Appellant deposited 25% being Rs.53,40,759/-as demanded by the DDA. Thereafter, on Block dated 19.03.2020-28.03.2020, a Demand Letter was issued by the DDA for balance payment of Rs.1,81,24,600/-.

6. According to the Appellant, the balance payment could not be made as lockdown was imposed by the Government on 23.03.2020 on account of Pandemic Covid-19. On 30.03.2020, Respondent issued a Public Notice for extension of time for making payment under different Housing Schemes, but there was no clarity of the notice related to the plot of the Appellant. As per the Demand Letter, Appellant was required to pay the balance amount by 25.06.2020. However, Appellant was unable to arrange for the loan due to the Pandemic and the last date under the Demand Letter expired.

7. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that a limited relief was sought by the Appellant before the learned Single Judge for grant of extension of time so that the balance amount could be deposited as the Appellant had already deposited 25% towards the cost of the plot. However, the learned Single Judge declined to grant the relief, compelling the Appellant to approach this Court. It is argued that the payment could not be made within the time stipulated in the Demand Letter on account of Pandemic Covid-19. For the same reason, even the loan could not be arranged on time, which was subsequently approved by the Axis Bank. However, despite this, neither the Respondent nor the learned Single Judge granted further time for paying the balance 75%.

8. It is not disputed before us that the Appellant was unable to deposit 75% of the value of the plot for which the last date in the Demand Letter was clearly 25.06.2020. The total value of the plot was Rs.2,41,66,000/-, out of which 25% (Rs.60,41,500/-) was already deposited by the Appellant (original petitioner) on 10.12.2019, after receiving the