R K SAXENA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the communication dated 1.7.1999 issued by the Respondent/Authority cancelling the bid of the Petitioner in respect of plot No. 109, Site-1, Shankar Road, Delhi - 110007 on the ground of non-payment of premium within the stipulated period. By the aforesaid communication the Petitioner was further informed that the earnest money deposited by the Petitioner had also been forfeited and the Petitioner was informed that the cheque towards refund of premium after deducting the forfeited money would be sent to him.

(2.) Subsequent to an advertisement issued by the Respondent/Authority an auction sale was held by the Delhi Development Authority in respect of a two side open plot being Plot No.l09, Site-1, Shankar Road, Delhi measuring about 83.12 Sq.Mts. Terms and Conditions of the aforesaid sale by auction have been placed on record. One of the aforesaid Conditions was that the successful bidder would have to pay a sum equivalent to 25% of his bid amount either in cash or by Bank Draft in favour of the Delhi Development Authority at the fall of the hammer and the balance 75% amount shall have to be paid within 60 days from the date of the issue of Demand Letter. A proviso is added to the aforesaid condition laying down that the Delhi Development Authority may extend the last date of payment, when the Vice-Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority is satisfied that sufficient reasons exists for doing so, upto the maximum period of 180 days, subject to payment of interest on the balance amount @ 18% per annum where the delay is 30 days or jess and 25% per annum for a period exceeding 30 day It is also a condition therein that in case the payment is not received within the stipulated period communicated in the demand letter, the auction bid shall automatically stand cancelled and 25% earnest money would stand forfeited without any notice.

(3.) On 28.11.1995 auction for sale of the aforesaid plot was held by the Delhi Development Authority and in the said auction the Petitioner was the highest bidder and his bid at Rs.28,18,000.00 was accepted by the respondent. On the very same day the Petitioner paid 25% of the bid amount which is equivalent to Rs 6,54,500.00 in accordance with terms and conditions of the auction sale. The demand letter was issued to the Petitioner by aletter dated 3.1.1996 in terms of which the balance 75% namely Rs.l9,63,545.00 was required to be paid by the Petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction sale within 60 days of the letter i.e. by 2.3.1996. The petitioner, however, requested for extension of time for payment of the balance amount by his letter dated 19.2.1996 on which date the Petitioner deposited another instalment of Rs.5,50,000.00 leaving a balance of Rs.l4,1.3,545.00 . The request of the Petitioner for extension of time for payment was considered by the Respondent and by communication dated 29.3.1996 the Petitioner was informed that his request for extension of time in making the payment of the remaining amount had been acceded to subject to payment of interest at 18% per annum. By the said letter the Petitioner was also informed that all the terms and conditions for auction would remain the same. However, the Petitioner failed to make payment of the balance amount payable by him within the extended time but again prayed for extension of time to deposit the balance by his letter dated 2.7.1996. By letter dated 8.8.1996 the Respondent granted an extension of time for 180 days beyond the due date i.e. 29.8.1996 for making payment of the balance premium, subject to payment of interest @ 25% per annum. The Petitioner was also informed that the terms and conditions of auction sale would remain the same. The aforesaid two intimations extending the time has been placed on record as ANNUXURES -5 & 6 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. Even within the aforesaid extended period no payment was made and by his letter dated 2.9.1996 the Petitioner again sought for extension of time for making payment of the balance amount. It transpires from record that thereafter Petitioner paid certain amounts and according to the Petitioner the-entire amount stands paid. The Vice- Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority, however, cancelled the bid of the Petitioner by applying the terms and conditions of the auction sale and directed refund of the balance deposited by the Petitioner and a communication in that regard was sent to the Petitioner which is challenged in the present writ petition.