1. The removal of formal defects is dispensed with.

2. We had heard learned counsel appearing for the parties on 25.03.2015, and given time to the appellant to file a better affidavit, explaining the cause of delay, which may also include the circumstances, in which the statement/concession was given by the counsel appearing for the Jaipur Development Authority, on which the writ petition was decided, and to explain as to whether the counsel appearing for the Jaipur Development Authority, at the relevant time, was competent to give any such concession, with or without the consultation of the authorities of the Jaipur Development Authority.

3. An additional affidavit on delay condonation application of the Jaipur Development Authority has been filed on 21.04.2015, stating as follows:-

“1. That I am the officer-in-charge for respondents in the above noted case and I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case as per the official record.

2. That the impugned order was passed on 01.05.2012. The copy of the order was received from counsel for the JDA with an opinion for not filing any appeal. The order and the opinion having been received was placed for reconsideration by HLA on 29-08-2012 who on the same day referred the matter to Director Law. The Director Law opined that the matter may be placed before the committee constituted for the purpose of deciding issue with regard to filing of appeal vide its letter dated 10-09-2012. Accordingly proposal was made for placing the matter before the committee on 13-09-2012.

3. That the initially the meeting of the committee was proposed to be fixed on 11-10-2012 at 03:30 but for some reason the matter could be placed on 11-10-2012.

4. That thereafter the committee discussed the matter and was of opinion that if lease deed is issued in this case then regularization in case of other plots will also be required. Accordingly it was proposed that the issue of appeal or no appeal should be taken after a policy decision in this regard. On 25-10-2012 it was also proposed that decision at the level of state government may be required.

5. That however when the matter was placed before JDC, on 28-10-2012 he directed for filing an appeal in the matter. Order in this regard was passed on 07-11-2012. However, due to Deewali break appeal could not be got prepared from the counsel immediately.

6. That the appeal prepared was placed for vetting of Director of Law on 27-11-2012. The appointment of Senior Advocate was also made and the appeal was also setting for vetting to him. The memo of appeal was finally approved on 30-11-2012 with a instruction to file it immediately.

7. That the aforesaid facts are clearly borne out from the note sheet which has already been submitted by the respondent alongwith his reply to the application for condonation of delay.

8. That however the non-filing of appeal by the counsel has been explained by him in an affidavit which has already been submitted alongwith application for condonation of delay.

9. That in so far, the concession made by the counsel is concerned, there is no record available with regard to any decision taken by the authority for this purpose. It is also not clear as to in what circumstances the person representing JDA instructed the counsel to state that the JDA would have no objection if the respondent would apply for issue of lease deed for commercial user in accordance with the Master Plan. It seems that both the counsel and the person representing JDA were under impression that lease deed for commercial purpose can be issued being permitted by the master plan which was not the correct impression.

10. That it is submitted that the issuance of lease deed for commercial purpose in the facts and circumstances of the case is not permissible as per the provisions of law and therefore such concession could not have been made with or without consultation of the competent authorities of JDA.

11. That it seems that it is only when t