Adherence to terms of allotment, authority's obligation to act in accordance with rules and regulations, and exercise of the power of forfeiture in exceptional cases.

ORDER :

Nandita Dubey, J.

1. This petition takes exception to the orders dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure P-1), 29.07.2019 (Annexure P-2), 03.10.2019 (Annexure P-3, P-4 and P-5), passed by respondent No. 2/Bhopal Development Authority, whereby the allotment of Lawyers' Chamber Nos. 358, 357, 355, 354 and 353, in favour of petitioner was cancelled and the registration amount was forfeited.

2. The Bhopal Development Authority (for brevity 'BDA') published an advertisement inviting offers for allotment of Lawyer's Chambers at Arera Hills, District Court Bhopal, wherein prospective candidates were called upon to apply for allotment of chambers. Petitioner submitted five separate applications for allotment of Chamber Nos. 353, 354, 355, 357 and 358 alongwith the total registration fees of Rs. 10,49,410/- for aforementioned five chambers on 04.11.2012. The BDA vide allotment order dated 13.12.2016, informed the petitioner that he has been allotted five chambers as applied for on the third floor. As per the allotment order, the balance amount was to be deposited by 13.01.2017, under certain terms and conditions. The petitioner, however, did not deposit the balance amount in pursuant to the allotment, within the stipulated period. The BDA vide five separate notices dated 10.06.2019, informed the petitioner to deposit the balance amount with respect to each of allotted chamber within a period of 10 days, else the allotment would be cancelled and the registration fees would be forfeited. On receipt of the notices, the petitioner vide letter dated 06.07.2019 and again on 13.09.2019 requested the BDA to cancel four of his allotments and return the registration fees as he intended to keep only one chamber. The BDA, however, cancelled all the allotments made in favour of the petitioner and forfeited the registration fees vide orders dated 26.07.2019, 29.07.2019 and 03.10.2019. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of cancellation, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition.

3. This Court vide order dated 11.12.2019 was pleased to direct the BDA to retain one chamber subject to petitioner's depositing the entire cost of one chamber. However, the order has not complied and as reflected from the order sheet dated 12.10.2020, a plea was raised that the same could not be complied as the details of payments were not made available to the petitioner.

4. The contention of Shri Akshat Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the orders impugned suffers from vice of arbitrariness, as no opportunity of hearing was ever granted to the petitioner before canceling the allotments. It is further canvassed that Rule 6(iv) of M.P. Vikas Pradhikarano Ki Sam-patiyon Ka Prabandhan Tathan Vyayan Niyam, 2013, itself permits a person to bid for more than one premises on purchase of separate bid forms, if the applicant wishes to increase his/her chance of allotment. It is stated that though the petitioner has applied for five chambers to increase the chances of allotment, but as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, only one member from a family can be allotted a chamber. Under the circumstances, the BDA was duty bound to adopt the strict guidelines and reject the remaining four applications filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the action of respondent is arbitrary, capricious and mala fide as despite receipt of notice dated 06.07.2019, requesting to cancel the other four allotments and to return the registration fee, the authority has cancelled all the allotments issued in his favour.

5. The stand of respondents/BDA is that the petitioner submitted five applications, as the number of applications received by the BDA were less than the number of chambers to be allotted, all his applications were allowed and the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 03.12.2016 regarding the allotment of five chambers. However, the petitioner did not object to the same nor submitted any application showing his intent to retain only o