The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and inaction on the part of the petitioner can disentitle them from the relief sought, especially when no right had accrued in their favor.

JUDGMENT :

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

1. The present intra court appeal is filed under Section 2(1) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22-01-2020 passed in W.P. No. 9909/2018 (Deepak Sharma Vs. Jabalpur Development Authority and another) passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the impugned orders dated 04-08-2012 and 31-03-2018 have been quashed. It has been further directed that the allotment order of plot in question shall be made in favour of the writ petitioner and the possession of the said plot be also handed over to him after completing all requisite formalities and also taking difference amount from him as per the rate quoted by him at the time of submitting his offer.

2. The facts adumbrated in nutshell are that respondent no. 1 Deepak Sharma filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashment of orders dated 04-08-2012 and 31-03-2018 withdrawing the earlier resolution, by which the plot was decided to be allotted to the petitioner therein, as well as the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The facts further reveal that an advertisement was issued on 01-03-2012 inviting offers in respect of Plot No. 936-B, area 4675 sq.ft. situated at Scheme No. 6, Sanjeevni Nagar, Jabalpur. The respondent no. 1 submitted his offer at the rate of Rs. 827/- per sq.ft. Two other applicants also submitted offers at a lower rate i.e. Rs. 818/- and 821/- per sq.ft. In pursuance to the offer made by the respondent no. 1, the matter was taken up in the meeting of Board of Directors on 15-06-2012 and it was resolved to reserve the plot for allotment in favour of the respondent no. 1. Large number of complaints were received in respect of financial irregularities in allotting the plot to the respondent no. 1 at a throwaway price without giving wide publicity to the notice inviting offer. It is stated that the notice inviting tender was not published in widely circulated newspaper i.e. Dainik Bhaskar and Nai Duniya etc. The complaints were scrutinized and it was decided that the earlier resolution dated 15-06-2012 made in favour of the respondent no. 1 be recalled and the matter be placed before the Allotment Committee afresh. After taking the decision recalling the reservation made in favour of the petitioner, the security amount deposited by the respondent no. 1 was returned on 04-08-2012. The respondent no. 1 thereafter filed a writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 15148/2012. However, the said writ petition was withdrawn on 10-05-2013 with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition. According to the appellant for almost 4 years, no writ petition was preferred and the appellant-Jabalpur Development Authority issued a fresh advertisement for the plot in question in the year 2018. The respondent no. 1 in the year, 2018 preferred another writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 5095/2018 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 07-03-2018 with a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation within a period of 60 days. The petitioner's representation was rejected and thereafter the third petition was preferred i.e. W.P. No. 9909/2018, which has been allowed by the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no right in favour of the respondent no. 1 had accrued because no letter of allotment was issued in favour of the respondent no. 1 at any point of time. Merely because a decision was taken to allot the plot in favour of the respondent no. 1, it would not mean that right was created in favour of the respondent no. 1. It is further urged that the Board of Directors, being the final authority is certainly free to take final decision in the matter. Since no right was crystallized in favour of the respondent no. 1, therefore, in the year 2012 itself, the security deposit was returned to the respondent no. 1. It has also been submitted that the amount offered by the respondent no. 1 was about R