ORDER

1. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :--

“7.1 Refund of amount to the tune of Rs. 41,98,634/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. to petitioner No. 1;

7.2 Issuance of fresh demand note to petitioner No.1 with respect of payment of first installment of premium amount for Shop No.3, RCM-13 according to reservation letter dated 19.12.2019;

7.3 Not to charge any penal interest on the subsequent demand notes being the petitioner No.1 not at fault;

7.4 Cost be awarded to the petitioners; &

7.5 Any other directions as this Hon?ble Court in the interest of justice may deem fit;

7.6 Quash and set aside notice dated 7.12.2023 (Annexure P/11).

7.7. Alternatively, direct the respondents to further grant time to the petitioner No.1 to deposit the alleged unpaid amount in terms of Rule 12 of the Vyayan Niyam, 2018 and revoke notice dated 7.12.2023 and direct respondents refund the amount paid by petitioner No.2 with interest.”

3. Admittedly, the reliefs as claimed in paras 7.6 and 7.7 have been sought subsequent to the filing of this petition, as the order dated 7.12.2023 was passed subsequent to the date of filing of the petition on 10.7.2023.

4. In brief, the facts of the case are that a tender was floated by the respondents/IDA for the auction of Shop No.3, RCM -13, Scheme No.140 through advertisement dated 8.8.2019. In the aforesaid advertisement, it was provided that the successful bidder is required to deposit 10% of the amount as EMD, and later on which was to be adjusted with first installment of 25% of premium. Since the petitioner No.1 was successful in the aforesaid bid, reservation letter was issued to him on 19.12.2019, according to which, the petitioner was required to deposit rest of the 25% as first installment by 17.1.2020, however, as the petitioner No.1 could not manage the aforesaid amount, he sought for the extension of time and thus, on 9.3.2020 the time was extended till 17.3.2020. However, as the petitioner No.1 was not able to deposit the amount by that time also, he again sought an extension on 17.3.2020, and vide letter dated 1.7.2020, the time was extended by the IDA upto 16.7.2020.

5. The case of the petitioner No.1 is that although the time was extended upto 16.7.2020, however, since the order was not passed on 30.6.2020, the amount of Rs.41,98,634/- was deposited by the petitioner No.1 through the petitioner No.2 on 1.7.2020, who deposited the same from his own account directly into the account of IDA.

6. However, despite such deposit, as no allotment letter was issued to the petitioner No.1, he submitted his representation on 15.12.2020, asking for the allotment letter and also the dues in respect of the same along with issuance of demand note for the next payment. However, as no reply was given by the respondents, the second representation was submitted by the petitioner No.1 on 8.11.2021 (Annexure P/7); third representation on 27.4.2023 (Annexure P/8), and thereafter, fourth representation on 13.6.2023 (Annexure P/9), in which, as the petitioner No.1 was already informed by the officers of the IDA that on account of the payment of his first installment by the petitioner No.2, his allotment letter is not being issued, the petitioner No.1 gave an explanation as to how the aforesaid amount has come to be deposited by the petitioner No.2 on his behalf. It was specifically stated by the petitioner No.1 that on account of the Covid-19 pandemic, he was not able to arrange the amount, hence, he had requested his co-worker to lend him the money, which was erroneously directly deposited by him in the IDA?s account, instead of making the payment to him. However, as no reply was given by the respondents of this last representation also, the petition was filed on 10.7.2023.

7. After the petition was filed, the respondents were issued notices and after seeking three adjo