Delhi High Court
Ashutosh Kumar vs Delhi Development Authority on 31 May, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 31st MAY, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ W.P.(C) 12425/2021
ASHUTOSH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Sinha, Ms.Shivee Pandey,
Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Mrinalini S. Gupta, Standing
Counsel for the DDA with Ms.
Divyanshi Bansal, Ms. Madhavi
Aggarwal, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:
"a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other similar
writ, order or direction of like nature under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, whereby directing the
Respondent to issue Allotment Letter qua the allotment
of Plot bearing No.S. C-5, New Kondli in favour of the
Petitioner;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other similar writ,
order or direction of like nature under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, whereby directing the
Respondent to issue No Objection Certificate/Letter of
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:03.06.2022
21:10:54
c) Grant such other and further relief(s) to the
Petitioner as may be found just and proper under the
circumstances of the case"
2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under:-
i. It is stated that the Petitioner/bidder participated in an e-auction
conducted by the Respondent/DDA on 28.06.2019 in respect of
Plots of land in Kondli, Mayur Vihar, Delhi, under the
Resettlement Scheme of DDA for a total sale consideration of
Rs.29,57,640/-. It is stated that the Petitioner paid 5% of the
total premium amount, i.e. Rs.73,691/-, as Earnest Money
Deposit (hereinafter referred to as „EMD‟).
ii. The bid of the Petitioner was accepted on 26.09.2019 and the
Petitioner was allotted a plot bearing No. S, C-5, Block, New
Kondli (hereinafter referred to as „the property in question). In
accordance with the terms of the e-auction notice, the
Petitioner/bidder paid the remaining 20% of the premium
amount, i.e. Rs.7,40,000/- to the Respondent/DDA.
iii. It is stated that on 04.12.2019, a Demand notice bearing No. FS
(114)/201g/LSB(R)2201, was issued to the Petitioner/bidder by
the Respondent/DDA wherein the Petitioner/bidder was asked
to deposit the balance 75% of the premium amount, i.e.
Rs.22,18,330/-, within 90 days from the receipt of the said
Demand notice, i.e. on or before 11.03.2020.
iv. It is stated that on 09.12.2019, the Petitioner visited the office
of the Respondent seeking issuance of a formal allotment letter
in respect of the property in question so that he could apply for
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:03.06.2022
21:10:54
a home loan.
v. It is stated that the Petitioner applied for a home loan, however,
his application for loan was not considered because of the
absence of an allotment letter. It is stated that on 27.12.2019
the Petitioner once again visited the office of the DDA seeking
issuance of allotment letter.
vi. It is stated that on 05.03.2020, the Petitioner/bidder gave a
representation to the Respondent/DDA seeking extension of
time for depositing the balance 75% of the premium amount.
vii. It is stated that on 02.12.2020, DDA issued a circular stating
that in all cases where demand letters were issued on or after
01.12.2019, as a one-time relief, extension of time for payment
of balance 75% of the premium amount had been granted to all
the bidders till 31.12.2020 with applicable interests.
viii. Material on record indicates that the Petitioner gave a
representation dated 30.12.2020 to the DDA requesting them to
issue a letter permitting the Petitioner to mortgage the property
in question so that the Petitioner could raise a loan from ICICI
Bank.
ix. It is stated that on 31.12.2020, loan to the tune of
Rs.20,00,000/- was sanctioned to the Petitioner by ICICI Bank
and the Petitioner once again went to the office of DDA
requesting for an allotment letter.
x. It is stated that on 01.01.2021, the Petitioner submitted a copy
of the sanction letter to the DDA. On 05.01.2021, the Petitioner
wrote a letter to the DDA requesting for mortgage letter.
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:03.06.2022
21:10:54
xi. Material on record indicates that the Petitioner wrote a letter
dated 25.01.2021 to Deputy Director, DDA, LSB (R) stating as
under:
"It is requested that I have the draft of Rs. 8,20,000/-
dated 31.12.2020 with me and I have already submitted
the Sanction Letter of ICICI Home Finance dated
31.12.2020 to DDA. I have already informed you by
letter on 30.12.2020 that ICICI Home Finance had
passed my loan whose letter has been deposited with
you. I have given several letters to your department
regarding this, but we have not received any reply.
Due to the Lockdown, we had deposited the
processing fee of the bank many months ago but after 4-
5 months the bank has passed my loan. I have deposited
the processing fees in many branches including Axis
Bank, Muthoot Home Finance Noida, out of which
Muthoot Home Finance closed its branch for 6 months.
Therefore, it is requested that office of Vikas
Sadan is closed for public dealing due to Corona
pandemic. When I reached Vikas Sadan with the Bank
Sanction Letter on 31.12.2020, the guard did not allow
me to go inside but if the Bank sanction letter had
processed on the same day, then my branch would have
issued my check till late evening in favour of DDA.
Hence, it is requested to consider our application
sympathetically in this critical situation, the bank
should act on the sanction letter as soon as possible. It
will be so kind of you"
xii. It is stated that on 25.03.2021, the Petitioner deposited a sum of
Rs.8,20,000/- vide challan No.94492, towards part payment of
the balance 75 % of the premium amount, however, he could
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:03.06.2022
21:10:54
not deposit the whole amount.
xiii. It is stated that DDA cancelled the allotment of the property in
question and aggrieved by this, the Petitioner has approached
this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
3. Mr. Rahul Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/bidder,
submits that the after having acceded to the permission of the Petitioner to
get a loan from a Bank, the action of DDA, cancelling the allotment letter, is
not justified. He submits that the Petitioner had made arrangements and a
loan to the tune of Rs.20,20,000/- was sanctioned to the Petitioner by the
ICICI Bank on 31.12.2020 and, therefore, the DDA could not have cancelled
the allotment letter. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that
the Petitioner had also written a letter dated 25.01.2021 to the Deputy
Director, DDA, LSB (R), stating that ICICI Bank has sanctioned a loan to
the Petitioner and that due to lockdown, the Petitioner was not in a position
to pay the processing fee to the Bank and, therefore, 4-5 month's time was
taken by the Bank to process the loan of the Petitioner. He states that for
this reason, the Petitioner sought time to pay the balance 75% premium
amount. He further states that the inaction on the part of DDA in issuing the
letter, permitting the Petitioner to mortgage the plot, should not be used
against the Petitioner and the allotment ought not to have been cancelled.
4. Per contra, Ms. Mrinalini S. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for DDA, submits that the Petitioner was obliged to make
payment of the balance 75% of the premium amount within 90 days as per
the demand notice. She states that even Clause 2.5 of the e-auction
document stipulates that the maximum period for keeping the offer of
acceptance open is 180 days and that the Demand letter would be valid for
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:03.06.2022
21:10:54
180 days from the date of its issuance, and it would cease to be effective
thereafter. She further states that circular dated 02.12.2020 does not apply to
the present case as according to that circular, the payment ought to have
been made on or before 31.12.2020. Since the Petitioner did not make the
payment within the stipulated time, his allotment had been cancelled.
5. Heard, Mr. Rahul Sinha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.
Mrinalini S. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for DDA, and
perused the material on record.
6. A perusal of the material on record indicates that on 28.06.2019, the
Petitioner had submitted his bid in respect of the property in question for
Rs.29,57,640/- and paid 5% of the total amount of the property in question,
i.e. Rs.73,691/-, as EMD. On 26.09.2019, the bid of the Petitioner/bidder
was accepted and the Petitioner was allotted the property in question. In
terms of the e-auction document, the Petitioner paid remaining 20% of the
EMD amount, i.e. Rs. 7,40,000/-, to the Respondent/DDA. On 04.12.2019, a
Demand notice was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent/DDA
wherein the Petitioner was asked to deposit the balance 75% of the premium
amount, i.e. Rs. 22,18,330/-, within 90 days from the receipt of the said
demand notice. The Petitioner, therefore, sought time to make the payment
of the balance amount.
7. The material on record demonstrates that the Petitioner is trying to
take advantage of circular dated 02.12.2020, issued by the DDA wherein
extension of time had been granted till 31.12.2020. The same reads as under:
"A) In all cases of disposal of properties through E-
Auction (Land Disposal), where demand letter was
issued for 75% of bid amount on or after 01.10.2019,
as a one-time relief measure, EOT will be deemed to be
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:03.06.2022
21:10:54
granted, without any written request of bidder, till
31.12.2020 for payment of 75% of bid amount (With
applicable interest).
B) In all cases of disposal of properties through E-
Auction (Land Disposal), where demand letter was
issued for 75% of bid amount before 01.10.2019 and
full payment have been made with respect to premium
of the property/plot by 01.11.2020, as a one-time relief
measure, the delay period, if any, will be treated as
automatically regularized post facto (With applicable
interest)."
8. It is settled law that bidders participating in the tender process have no
other right except the right to equality and fair treatment in the matter of
evaluation of competitive bids offered by interested persons in response to
notice inviting tenders in a transparent manner and free from agenda [Refer:
Meerut Development Authority and Ors. v. Association of Management
Studies and Ors., AIR 2009 SC 2894]. It is equally well settled that the
Petitioner/bidder having participated in the bid process, accepting its terms
and conditions, now cannot challenge the same [Refer: Judgement of this
Court dated 05.10.2016 in W.P.(C) 1501/2015 titled as Monnet Ispat and
Energy Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.].
9. Material on record further shows that on 30.12.2020, the
Petitioner/bidder wrote a letter to the Respondent/DDA seeking seven days'
time to get the loan from ICICI Bank. Material on record further discloses
that it was only on 01.01.2021 that the Petitioner submitted the sanction
letter to the DDA which is beyond the last date, i.e. 31.12.2020, as per the
circular dated 02.12.2020.
10. After the expiry of the last date of making payment of the balance
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:03.06.2022
21:10:54
75% of the premium amount, no remedy survives for the Petitioner and,
therefore, the Petitioner cannot place reliance on the circular dated
02.12.2020 to attain, as a matter of right, an extension of time to make teh
balance payment.
11. The Petitioner also cannot rely on the letter dated 25.01.2021, which
was written to the Deputy Director, LSB (R), seeking permission for
issuance of mortgage letter, as it was written by the Petitioner beyond the
last date of payment of the balance premium amount.
12. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to pursue the instant
writ petition to grant the relief as prayed for herein.
13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed, along with the
pending application(s), if any.
14. However, it is always open to the Petitioner to file an application with
the DDA for refund of Rs.8,20,000/- that he had deposited on 25.03.2021
towards the part payment of the balance 75% premium amount.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
MAY 31, 2022
Rahul
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:03.06.2022
21:10:54
