The demand for misc. expenses, development charges, and lease money was illegal and non est in law as the Guidelines governing the auction did not authorize the respondent-Board to realize these amounts at the stage of payment of 75% of the bid amount.

1. - In assailant is the judgment and order dated 16.09.1996, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.227/1994, instituted by the appellant herein, thereby dismissing the same.

2. We have heard Mr. R.K. Agarwal, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant and Dr. P.C. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent-Board.

3. The pleaded facts reveal the backdrop of the lis. The respondent-Board had formulated a scheme titled "Jawahar Nagar Scheme" in the city of Jaipur and to effect the allotment of plots thereunder, earmarked certain areas for commercial use and also framed guidelines to conduct the auction thereof and nomenclatured the same as "Terms and conditions of auction of commercial plots". A commercial plot No.B-4, measuring 950.70 sq. mtrs. was put on auction on 19.08.1992 and the appellant/writ-petitioner participated in the process and offered a bid of Rs. 3,875/- per sq. mtr., which was eventually adjudged to be the highest and the auction was knocked down in its favour in terms of clause-4 of the Guidelines, referred to here-in-above. The appellant/writ-petitioner deposited 10% of the bid amount at the spot and further 15% thereof on the next date i.e. 20.08.1992, for which due receipt was issued by the respondent-Board. The appellant/writ-petitioner, thus, by 20.08.1992 had deposited Rs. 9,20,380/- in accordance with clause-4 of the Guidelines. The respondent-Board by its letter dated 15.09.1992, finally accepted the appellant/writ-petitioner's bid in accordance with clause-5 of the Guidelines, but in doing so, demanded of it an additional amount of Rs. 77,663.32 as misc. expenses and development fees and a sum of Rs. 15,46,890/- by way of lease money for 10 years. Thus, though in terms of clause-6 of the Guidelines, according to the appellant/writ-petitioner it was required to deposit the balance 75% of the bid amount to the tune of Rs. 27 lacs and odd, an additional amount of Rs. 16 lacs and odd was sought to be realised from it by the respondent-Board. By letter dated 15.09.1992, the appellant/writ-petitioner was asked to make the payment within 60 days. The appellant/writ-petitioner protested against the said demand by its response dated 09.10.1992, where after a modified demand was laid by the respondent-Board vide its letter dated 13.11.1992, reducing misc. expenses and development charges to Rs. 65,877/- and the lease money for one year i.e. Rs. 1,54,689/- in lieu of 10 years. The total demand was thus scaled down to Rs. 29,83,258/- by the said letter. The appellant/writ-petitioner has averred that while it pleaded before the Estate Officer of the respondent-Board and other authorities against the illegal demand, nothing fruitful did ensue and instead by letter dated 19.12.1992, it was informed that the amount, as demanded vide letter dated 13.11.1992, ought to be deposited within a period of 7 days, failing which its allotment would be cancelled.

4. Situated thus, the appellant/writ-petitioner by its letter dated 02.02.1993, sought for extension of time to deposit the amount, to which the respondent-Board, by its letter dated 03.02.1993, required it to deposit an amount of Rs. 29,83,258/- together with penal interest @ 24% p.a., as it had failed to deposit the principal amount by the time granted. By letters dated 16.02.1993 and 15.04.1993, the appellant/writ-petitioner was again intimated by the respondent-Board to make deposit of the aforementioned amount indicating that on its failure, its bid would be cancelled and 25% of the deposit amount would be forfeited. Eventually by letter dated 24.11.1993, the respondent-Board cancelled the allotment of the above-mentioned plot in favour of the appellant/writ-petitioner and forfeited as well 25% of the amount deposited by it.

5. Being aggrieved, the appellant/writ-petitioner turned to this Court seeking annulment of the demand contained in the letter dated 13.11.1992 as well as the decision of the respondent-B