Delhi High Court
Smt.Darshna Rani vs Delhi Development Authority on 5 August, 2008
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No.157/2008
Smt.Darshna Rani .....Appellant
Through: Mr.M.S. Vohra, Advocate
Versus
Delhi Development Authority ...Respondents
Through: Mr.C. Mohan Rao,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
1.Whether reporters of the local news papers be
allowed to see the judgment?n
2.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?n
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?n
ORDER
% 5.8.2008
1. The appellant challenges the order of the learned single
Judge dated 13th March, 2008 passed in WP(C) No.6897/2007.
2. The appellant is the original writ petitioner. She had
submitted a tender for allotment of shop bearing No.G-7, Block
No.B-IV, Ground Floor, LSC at Lawrence Road in February, 2004.
Along with the tender form, she had deposited Rs.98,750/-
towards earnest money. The bid of the appellant was accepted
LPA No.157/2008 page 1 of 4
and a demand letter dated 15th April, 2004 was issued to the
appellant to deposit balance amount of Rs.2,96,250/- on/or
before 14th May, 2004. The demand letter specifically stipulates
that if the payment was not made by 14th May, 2004, the
appellant would be liable to pay 15% compound interest with
compounding being done of the accounting year. The demand
letter further states that no regularisation of allotment is
permissible on payment beyond 180 days. It is an admitted
position that the appellant had not made full payment within 180
days in terms of the demand cum allotment letter. The appellant
also did not pay interest in terms of the said demand cum
allotment letter. In these circumstances, the respondent has
refused to make allotment of the aforesaid shop and has
cancelled the allotment made to the appellant.
3. The main contention of the appellant is that in similar
cases the DDA had condoned delay of more than 180 days.
However, this is disputed by the DDA. It has been stated that
there was only one case in which the DDA had condoned delay of
380 days and the Vice Chairman had taken the said decision on
28th November, 2000. In no other case the DDA has condoned
delay in payment of the principal amount beyond 180 days but
LPA No.157/2008 page 2 of 4
delay in payment of interest beyond the said period can be
condoned.
4. This Court has consistently taken a view that the bids for
purchasing a shop are purely of the commercial nature and,
therefore, such cases cannot be compared to allotment of
residential plots / flats. In Prem Rani (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi
Development Authority {2005 II AD (Delhi) 376}, this Court
held that non-statutory policies, guidelines and conditions
evolved for the functioning of state agencies bind such agencies;
they can ignore such conditions only at the peril of violation of
Article 14. In that case reliance was placed on the decisions of
the Supreme Court in Raman Dayaraman Shetty v. Union of
India; West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel
Engineering and Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal. It is
thus clear that in the absence of any authority to waive
conditions of an auction to the terms governing an auction,
where such conditions have not been complied with or have been
violated, there is no valid sanction of tenders. The contention
that in some other cases DDA had accepted the amount beyond
180 days must be rejected as Article 14 creates an obligation to
LPA No.157/2008 page 3 of 4
grant equal treatment but the same does not amount to a
mandate to indulge in transgression of policies.
5. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.MURALIDHAR, J
August 05, 2008
"nm"
LPA No.157/2008 page 4 of 4
