S.L.Sachdev And Anr vs D.D.A.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4029 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Date of decision: 18th August, 2011
+                               W.P.(C) 5963/2011

         S.L.SACHDEV AND ANR                                       ..... Petitioners
                      Through:                Mr. S. Hari Haran, Adv.

                                           versus
         D.D.A.                                               ..... Respondent
                                Through:      Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. for
                                              DDA.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may              Not necessary
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                     Not necessary

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported                    Not necessary
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioners had participated in an auction held by the respondent

DDA in the year 1993 and had as a term of the said auction deposited an

amount of `12 lacs as earnest with the respondent DDA. Though the

petitioners were the highest bidder but their bid was not

accepted/confirmed. The same was subject matter of W.P.(C)5143/1994

earlier preferred by the petitioners but which was ultimately dismissed vide

judgment dated 26th October, 2010. It was found in the said judgment that

the respondent DDA immediately upon non-acceptance of the bids had

repeatedly tendered the refund of the said amount of `12 lacs to the

petitioners but the petitioners had refused to accept the same. The Division

Bench of this Court thus while dismissing the petition directed the

respondent DDA to return the said amount of `12 lacs to the petitioners.

2. This petition has been filed seeking the relief of return of the said

amount of `12 lacs with interest.

3. Upon it being put to the counsel for the petitioners as to how this

petition is maintainable since direction for refund has already been made in

the earlier writ petition, the counsel for the petitioners states that the refund

of `12 lacs has already been received and the claim in this petition is

confined to interest only. On further enquiry as to why in the title of the

petition it is described as for refund of earnest money, the counsel states it

is a mistake.

4. It has further been enquired from the counsel for the petitioners

whether there was not a term of auction that no interest would be payable

on the earnest money. The counsel agrees that there was such a term. The

same has also not been disclosed.

5. Similarly, the petitioners though have disclosed that an SLP was

preferred to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench

in the earlier writ petition aforesaid preferred by the petitioners but have

not filed a copy of the order of the Apex Court also before this Court.

6. Though the judgment of the Division Bench filed along with the

petition is verified as "True Copy" but admittedly contains the wrong writ

petition number. The petition even otherwise is incoherent with blanks and

missing words.

7. The counsel for the petitioner refers to Kashyap Zip Ind. V. Union

of India 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 493 in support of his case for entitlement of

the petitioners to interest. However the facts in that case were entirely

different. In the present case not only are the petitioners not entitled to

interest as per terms on which the said amount of `12 lacs was deposited

but the petition is also barred by res judicata/constructive res judicata. The

grievance if any of the petitioners in this regard ought to have been

addressed in the earlier round of writ petition and if the petitioners were

aggrieved from non-grant of interest by the Division Bench, the same

ought to have been agitated before the Supreme Court. The counsel for the

petitioners now states that the said ground was in fact taken in the SLP but

contends that the SLP was dismissed in limine.

8. The entire filing of the petition is found to be in abuse of the process

of this Court. The petitioners without making a complete disclosure have

sought to have the notice of the petition issued.

9. The counsel for the petitioners at this stage seeks to withdraw the

petition.

10. Though allowing the petitioners to withdraw the petition, the

petitioners are burdened with costs of `20,000/- payable to the Delhi Legal

Services Authority within four weeks of today. If proof of payment of said

costs is not furnished within four weeks to the Registry, the Registry to re-

list the matter for appropriate direction.

11. On request of the counsel for the petitioners, who is a young

Advocate and states that he will be careful in future, the costs are reduced

to `2,000/-.

CM No.12071/2011 (for exemption).

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) AUGUST 18, 2011 pp