Uoi & Anr. vs Panna Lal Tandon
2009 Latest Caselaw 2113 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                 LPA 224/2009 & CM Nos. 7156-58/2009


        UOI & ANR.                                      ..... Appellants
                           Through:   Ms. Shilpa Singh, Advocate.

                      versus


        PANNA LAL TANDON                               ..... Respondent
                      Through:        None.



        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
                      ORDER

% 18.05.2009

1. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned

single Judge dated 11th December, 2007. Briefly the facts of the case

are that the appellants (original respondents in the writ petition) had

advertised to sell a vacant plot in January, 1973. The respondent

(original petitioner in the writ petition) entered his bid which was

found to be the highest. The property was a 200 sq. yds. plot. The

respondent's bid was accepted and he paid the earnest money. The

appellants without assigning any reason informed the respondent

that the earnest money was to be refunded to him. However, the

money was never returned. The respondent represented to the

authorities against the said action. The appellants in their counter

affidavit have not disputed that respondent was the highest bidder.

However, they contended that the respondent had no vested right to

claim the allotment since his bid was accepted provisionally. They

also denied that the reasons had to be assigned for cancelling the

bid.

2. The learned single Judge has rightly held that the appellants'

conduct was indifferent and they were not willing to redress the

genuine grievance of a citizen who fell victim to its maze of decision

making. There was no justification or explanation for the inaction of

the appellants and the learned single Judge rightly held their action

to be arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India. After balancing equities, the learned single Judge has

correctly directed refund of amount of earnest money with

compound interest as also payment of damages to the respondent.

3. It is also pertinent to mention here that the present appeal

suffers from delay of 474 days. No plausible explanation is

forthcoming in the condonation of delay application to justify and

explain such a long delay in filing of the present appeal. Clearly, the

appellants have slept over the matter for a long number of years.

There is no satisfactory explanation in the condonation for delay

application. The present appeal can be rejected on this count alone.

This is a case where a citizen was made to wait for years for an

alternative allotment and made to run from pillar to post for no fault

of his. The degree of fairness expected from an instrumentality of the

State is higher than that expected from a private individual. There

must be fair play in action. Every act of the State has to be informed

by reason and must show application of mind. In the present case,

there is no justification or plausible explanation for the arbitrary and

unreasonable actions of the appellant. The present appeal could be

dismissed simply on the ground of delay and latches. The appellants

have been clearly negligent in pursuing their legal remedies.

However, even on merits, as discussed by us hereinabove, we are in

agreement with the findings of the learned single Judge. The appeal

must fail. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. All the pending

applications stand disposed of as well.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 18, 2009 sb