Delhi High Court
Anil Mehta vs Dda on 8 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: I (2003) BC 282, 101 (2002) DLT 96
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. Rule.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the
parties the matter is taken up for final disposal .
3. The petitioner has filed the writ petition
aggrieved by the non-acceptance of the bid of the
petitioner for shop No. 78 situated in LSC, J Block,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
4. An advertisement had been issued in the 'Times
of India' on 28.3.2000 for auction by the DDA of shops
and offices and the petitioner participated in the same
on 18.4.2000. The list of successful bidders was
displayed on 26.4.2000 containing the name of the
petitioner. The earnest money paid by the petitioner
was refunded by the respondent without assigning any
reasons. The petitioner made a representation against
the same on 15.6.2000 and thereafter filed the present
writ petition.
5. It is not disputed that the earnest money
refunded has since been encashed by the petitioner
during the pendency of the writ petition. In the
counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated
that the reason for the non-acceptance of the bid of
the petitioner was that though shop in question was
shown on the first floor in the tender document it was
actually on the second floor. In view thereof all the
shops bearing Nos. 63 to 79 were withdrawn and the
earnest money refunded.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the terms and conditions of the tender are arbitrary
and give unbridled powers to the respondents in so far
as Clause 1 and 2 under the heading Submission of
Documents is concerned. The said clauses are as
under:-
"1. The Officer opening the
tenders/Director(CL) may without assigning any
reasons withdraw all or any of the
shop/kiosk/office from the tender at any stage.
The tender shall be for the office/built up units
are being sold on as is where is basis. It is
presumed that the tenderer has inspected the
property before giving tender.
2. No person whose tender has been
accepted by the officer opening the tenders shall
be permitted to withdraw or surrender his tender on
any ground whatsoever."
Learned counsel for the petitioner thus contends
that atleast the reason for the rejection of the bid
should have been communicated to the petitioner. It is
the further submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner had no objection to
accepting the shop on the second floor even though
normally the prices are lower on the second floor as
compared to the first floor since the petitioner had
physically visited and verified area.
7. I have considered the submission advanced by
learned counsel for the the parties.
8. There is no doubt about the proposition that a
public authority like the respondent should act in a
fair and reasonable manner. However, I am unable to
agree with the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner the the condition prescribed in the terms of
allotment are of such a nature that the same are liable
to be quashed. The transaction in question is one of
auction and the terms and conditions are normal
conditions of such auctions. Further it is always open
to the court to verify from the respondent by either
calling upon to file an affidavit and/or by calling of
the records.
9. In the present case a considered decision has
been taken to withdraw a number of shops in view of the
fact that the floor on which they were situated was
wrongly mentioned. This Court is not concerned with
the fact that the prices will be higher in different
floors since what was tendered were shops on the
second floor while the tenders stated that they were on
on the first floor. The decision to withdraw the same
cannot be said to be one as to call for interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In CW
2719/2002 DELHI MEDICOS v. M.C.D. and Anr. decided
on 8.8.2002 similar issue arose though the shop was
withdrawn on account of difference in the shop areas.
Since the description of the area was wrong, it was held
that the shop should be withdrawn from the auction. In
view of their being delay in the refund of the amount
interest was directed to be paid to the petitioner.
10. In the present case, however, the bid was made
on 18.4.2000 and the refund was made on 26.5.2000.
There is thus a difference of about over a month in the
refund of the amount. The petitioner, however, even
thereafter did not encash the amount. However, the
question is not one of the quantum but of the
principle. I am thus of the considered view that for
the period from 18.4.2000 to 26.5.2000 the petitioner
should be entitled to interest. The petitioner has
been made to participate in the auction and the
allotment has not been made to the petitioner for no
fault of the petitioner. The respondent did not take
due care at the stage of auction to verify the
position. The respondent will thus pay interest @ 15%
per annum for the aforesaid period of time. The
interest amount to be paid to the petitioner within a
period of two weeks from today.
11. I am further constrained to observe that there
are number of cases coming to the notice if this court
where flats and shops and spaces are put in auction
without taking prior due care with the result that
persons participate in the same and are thereafter
informed that such shops and spaces have been
withdrawn. This is occurring as a direct result of lack
of proper verification by the respondent prior to their
auction. Respondent must take due care to prevent such
instance.
12. The writ petition is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the
Vice-Chairman, DDA without process fee.
