Dimpy Fashions (India) vs Delhi Development Authority
1991 Latest Caselaw 759 Del

JUDGMENT

Sunanda Bhandare, J.

(1) Rule D.B.

(2) SINCE.A very short point-is involved we proceed to decide the wr ite petition finally.

(3) Plot No. 48/7 measuring 501.66 mts. in E Block, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 11,NeW Delhi was auctioned by the respondent-Delhi Development Authority by way of a public auction held on 22.10.1984 The petitioner, a partnership firm made- the highest bid for the sum ofs 74,OoO.00 . The petitioner paid.a sum of Rs. 2 lacs at the fall of the hammer, on 14.l2.1984 the Delhi Development Authority issued a letter to the petitioner confirming acceptance of its bid by Vice-Chairman and asked the petitioner to deposit the balance sum of Rs. 5,40,11.00 . By another letter dated 31.12.1984 the respondent Delhi Development Authority informed the petitioner that the due date for payment of the balance amount was 13.1.1985 The petitioner however did not make the payment and vide letter dated 11.l. 1985 prayed that since the petitioner had suffered in the riots of November 1984 the time for deposit of the balance bid amount be extended. The respondent however on 20.2.1985 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the bid may not be cancelled for the breach of the terms and conditions of the auction. The petitioner vide letter dated 6.3.1985 informed the respondent that the business of the petitioner was affected due to riots that took place in Delhi after the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, Therefore, the petitioner was facing certain financial paucity. However, the petitioner had deposited a further sum of Rs. 2,50,000.00 on 5.3 1985 and informed the respondent that the petitioner would deposit the balance amount of Rs 2,90,011.00 before end of April 1985. The petitioner thus prayed for extension of lime till the end of April 1985 for the deposit of the amount. On 10.9.1985 the petitioner received a letter from the respondent for personal appearance on 16 9.1985. The representative of the petitioner met the concerned authority on that day and explained the reason for the delay in depositing the balance amount. By another letter dated 31.10.1985 the petitioner informed the respondent that a further sum ofRs. 75,000.00 had been paid and the petitioner has applied for loan and, therefore further time be extended The respondent on 23.11.1985 replied to the letter of the petitioner dated 6.3 1985 and asked the petitioner to furnish evidence of being riot victim. The petitioner on 9.12 1985 informed the respondent that the petitioner was willing to pay interest for the delayed payment and also by letter dated 16-6.1986 reiterated that the petitioner being riot victim, the plot be released to the petitioner. Affidavit in support of being riot victim was also furnished on 24.9.1986. The respondent thereafter on 29.12.1986 informed the petitioner that since the petitioner bad failed to deposit 75% of the balance premium towards the plot, the caution bid was cancelled vide letter dated 9 12.1986 and the earnest money deposited by the petitioner stood forfeited. The petitioner thereafter sought the review of the order dated 9.12.1986. The respondent however did not send any reply to the said representation and, therefore, the petitioner has filed this present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(4) It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has in other cases extended the time in depositing the balance of the bid money ard, therefore, the petitioner being a riot victim ought to have also been given further time to deposit the balance bid amount Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Reliable Laboratories (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority, . Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the respondent be restrained from re-auctioning the said plot and be directed to give possession of the plot to the petitioner since now the full amount has been paid

(5) On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the terms and conditions of the auction itself stated that no extension of time will be allowed in any circumstances whatsoever. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to ask for extension in depositing the amount. It was further submitted that under the Dda (Disposal of Development Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 the Vice Chairman of the respondent could only extend the time up to a maximum limit of 180 days and the Delhi Development Authority had no authority to extend the time beyond that period and it was only the tender I Government who could extend the time. In fact, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the matter had been referred to the Ministry of Urban Development by the respondent for condensation of delay but no decision has been taken by the Central Government; as yet though a recommendatory resolution has been passed by the Delhi Development Authority.

(6) It is thus an admitted position that the Central Government has in deserving cases extended the time in depositing the balance bid amount and the Delhi Development Authority has in the present case recommended the case of the petitioner to the Central Government seeking such a relaxation.

(7) Learned Counsel for the petitioner very fairly submitted that at best the respondent is entitled to interest for the delayed payment and the respondent cannot discriminate against the petitioner merely on the ground that the Central Government has not taken any decision in the case of the petitioner.

(8) Admittedly, we find that the petitioner has paid the full bid amount by now and the respondent has retained the said amount with it for so many year. Since the petitioner has now agreed to pay interest for the delayed payment of the balance of the bid amount, we see no reason why the respondent cannot band over possession of the plot to the petitioner on the petitioner's paying interest for the delayed payment.

(9) On an inquiry made by the Court, learned Counsel for the respondent slated that the normal rate of interest is @ 25% per annum. The petitioner has no objection to pay interest at the rate.

(10) In the circumstances, we allow the writ petition and make the Rule absolute. We set aside the order of the respondent dated 9.12..986 cancelling the bid and direct that the petitioner be given posse sion of the plot on the petitioner's paying interest @ 25% per annum on the delayed payment from the date the amount fell due till payment. The petitioner will pay the amount of interest within four weeks and the respondent will give possession of Plot No 48/7 measuring 501.66 mts. in E Block, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase Ii New Delhi to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. No costs.