The court ruled that failing to meet a stipulated payment deadline invalidates any claims for extension based on subsequent communications, reinforcing the binding nature of auction terms.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. (Oral)--The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:

"a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other similar writ, order or direction of like nature under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby directing the Respondent to issue Allotment Letter qua the allotment of Plot bearing No.S. C-5, New Kondli in favour of the Petitioner;

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other similar writ, order or direction of like nature under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby directing the Respondent to issue No Objection Certificate/Letter of

c) Grant such other and further relief(s) to the Petitioner as may be found just and proper under the circumstances of the case"

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under:

i. It is stated that the Petitioner/bidder participated in an e-auction conducted by the Respondent/DDA on 28.06.2019 in respect of Plots of land in Kondli, Mayur Vihar, Delhi, under the Resettlement Scheme of DDA for a total sale consideration of Rs.29,57,640/-. It is stated that the Petitioner paid 5% of the total premium amount, i.e. Rs.73,691/-, as Earnest Money Deposit (hereinafter referred to as `EMD').

ii. The bid of the Petitioner was accepted on 26.09.2019 and the Petitioner was allotted a plot bearing No. S, C-5, Block, New Kondli (hereinafter referred to as `the property in question'). In accordance with the terms of the e-auction notice, the Petitioner/bidder paid the remaining 20% of the premium amount, i.e. Rs.7,40,000/- to the Respondent/DDA.

iii. It is stated that on 04.12.2019, a Demand notice bearing No. FS (114)/201g/LSB(R)2201, was issued to the Petitioner/bidder by the Respondent/DDA wherein the Petitioner/bidder was asked to deposit the balance 75% of the premium amount, i.e. Rs.22,18,330/-, within 90 days from the receipt of the said Demand notice, i.e. on or before 11.03.2020.

iv. It is stated that on 09.12.2019, the Petitioner visited the office of the Respondent seeking issuance of a formal allotment letter in respect of the property in question so that he could apply for a home loan.

v. It is stated that the Petitioner applied for a home loan, however, his application for loan was not considered because of the absence of an allotment letter. It is stated that on 27.12.2019 the Petitioner once again visited the office of the DDA seeking issuance of allotment letter.

vi. It is stated that on 05.03.2020, the Petitioner/bidder gave a representation to the Respondent/DDA seeking extension of time for depositing the balance 75% of the premium amount.

vii. It is stated that on 02.12.2020, DDA issued a circular stating that in all cases where demand letters were issued on or after 01.12.2019, as a one-time relief, extension of time for payment of balance 75% of the premium amount had been granted to all the bidders till 31.12.2020 with applicable interests.

viii. Material on record indicates that the Petitioner gave a representation dated 30.12.2020 to the DDA requesting them to issue a letter permitting the Petitioner to mortgage the property in question so that the Petitioner could raise a loan from ICICI Bank.

ix. It is stated that on 31.12.2020, loan to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- was sanctioned to the Petitioner by ICICI Bank and the Petitioner once again went to the office of DDA requesting for an allotment letter.

x. It is stated that on 01.01.2021, the Petitioner submitted a copy of the sanction letter to the DDA. On 05.01.2021, the Petitioner wrote a letter to the DDA requesting for mortgage l