The exercise of discretion by public authorities must be reasoned and cannot be arbitrary, especially when genuine delays are substantiated.

JUDGEMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Availability of a discretion with respect to decision making, be it judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative side, is law given whereas exercise of a given discretion is always reason guided. If a given discretion is exercised without an enabling reason, then the decision of an authority exercising the discretion invites scrutiny on the challenge of being an arbitrary and unfair exercise of discretion vitiating the decision itself.

3. The present case is the one in which a decision in exercise of discretion by the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) aiming to deny formal allotment of a hall premises for delay in payment of last installment of premium on the part of the petitioner is being called in question.

4. The respondent no. 1-Jammu Development Authority (JDA) is the developer and promoter of a shopping complex known as "Bahu Plaza" situated at Rail Head Complex, Jammu. A premises in the form of a Hall No. 306(B-1) North Block measuring 711.56 square feet at the 3rd floor of Block B-1 came to be allotted on premium with rent basis in favour of the petitioner. Total premium payable was Rs. 11,56,500/- which was to be payable in five installments of Rs. 2,31,300/- each as per the schedule stipulated in an allotment letter no. JDA/3P/1, dated 01.04.2006 issued by the Secretary of the respondent no. 1-Jammu Development Authority (JDA) to the petitioner.

5. With respect to the payment of premium installments, one of the attending instructions in said allotment letter dated 01.04.2006 is that delay in the payment of any given installment was to attract penal interest @ 18% per annum for the maximum period of three months beyond which any delay was to empower the respondent no. 1-Jammu Development Authority (JDA) to cancel the allotment and forfeit the installment/s paid.

6. It is this discretion vested condition which purportedly came into play against the petitioner on account of delay of three months on his part in tendering the payment of last installment of Rs. 2,31,300/-, while all the four earlier installments made by the petitioner were on time, resulting in purported cancellation of his allotment of said premises.

7. The facts of the case in their plain setting are that pursuant to an advertisement published in a newspaper Daily Excelsior dated 05.02.2005 with respect to allotment of shops/hall premises in Bahu Plaza Rail Head Complex, Jammu floated by the respondent no. 1-Jammu Development Authority (JDA), the petitioner came to be apprised about allotment of the hall bearing no. 306 (B-1) North Block measuring 711.56 sq.ft. at the 3rd floor of Block B-1, Bahu Plaza Rail Head Complex, Jammu in terms of allotment letter no. JDA/BP/1, dated 01.04.2006 issued by the Secretary of the respondent no. 1-Jammu Development Authority (JDA).

8. In terms of the aforesaid letter of allotment, the schedule of payment of premium installments was set out in terms whereof the payment of first installment of Rs. 2,31,300/- by the petitioner to the respondent no. 1 was acknowledged to have been received and balance amount of premium of Rs. 2,25,200/- was scheduled to be payable in four installments of Rs. 2,31,300/- each with the time schedule given therein. The allotment of the aforesaid business premises in favour of the petitioner on lease hold basis was meant to be for a period of forty years.

9. In terms of this letter of allotment, condition no. 4 was stated that delay in the payment of any installment was to attract penal interest @ 18% per annum for a maximum period of three months beyond which the delay is to empower the respondent no. 1-Jammu Deve