The court reinforced that public authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice and equitable conduct, and cannot arbitrarily rescind agreements without just cause.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging impugned Order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Director (Old Scheme Branch), Delhi Development Authority (Respondent No.2 herein) wherein the Petitioner's request for allotment of Plot. No. 58, Pocket P, EPDP Colony, C.R. Park, New Delhi-110019 (hereinafter, "the demised plot") at 85% of the his Bid was rejected and allotment was cancelled.

2. The facts, in brief, leading up to the filing of the instant writ petition are as follows:

a) It is stated that on 01.06.2019, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had issued an advertisement pertaining to the e-auction of properties. Consequently, the Petitioner placed its bid in pursuance of the e-auction on 25.06.2019, and on 26.06.2019, the Petitioner was declared to be the Highest Bidder (H1) with respect to the demised plot.

b) The demised plot was inspected by an architect hired by the Petitioner and it was found that the actual area of the same (106.55 sq. mtr.) was lesser than the area notified by the DDA (139.07 sq. mtr.). The Petitioner wrote to the DDA on 19.08.2019 requesting a verification of the dimensions of the demised plot and sought for a reduction in the value of the plot on a pro-rata basis. Instead of responding to the letter dated 19.08.2019, DDA issued a Letter of Intent dated 21.08.2019 stating that the bid of the Petitioner with respect to the demised plot had been accepted and that the Petitioner had been declared the Successful Bidder.

c) The Petitioner duly complied with the requirements stipulated in the Letter of Intent dated 21.08.2019, and deposited a sum of Rs.3,40,28,949/-. However, the grievance as to the measurement of the demised plot was raised yet again as the variation in the same was found to be more than 10%. Despite the repeated requests, it is stated that the DDA issued an Allotment-cum-Demand Letter dated 07.10.2019 instead, requesting the Petitioner to pay the balance sum of Rs.2,55,21,756/- within a period of 90 days.

d) It is stated that the Petitioner made repeated correspondences and was also under severe financial duress. The concerns of the Petitioner were also highlighted at a meeting held on 12.12.2019 held with the Vice Chairman of the DDA (Respondent No.1) and a letter dated 12.12.2019 was also submitted by the Petitioner seeking a revised Demand Letter. No response was received regarding the same, and on 01.01.2020, under protest, the Petitioner deposited the balance sum within the stipulated 90 days. A letter dated 01.01.2020 was also submitted to Respondent No.1 requesting for a refund of the excess payment that was to be calculated after revision of the value of the demised plot on a pro-rata basis.

e) On 18.02.2020, a meeting took place between the Petitioner and the Office of Respondent No.1 with regard to the refund of the excess payment as well as the execution and registration of the Conveyance Deed of the demised plot. It is stated that the Petitioner was informed and assured that only 10% of the Bid Amount with respect to the demised plot could be returned as per the internal policies of the DDA. It is stated that as the Petitioner was facing financial hardship, the Petitioner agreed to the refund of 10% of the Bid Amount and gave its written consent on 05.03.2020 (Annexure P-16, page No. 125 of the paperbook) to forego the excess premium paid. Yet again, repeated communications were made to the Respondents by the Petitioner seeking a