TRINITY COLONIZERS PVT. LTD Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order is in continuation of the order dated 16.11.2011, whereunder in view of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that it was being discriminated against a similarly placed party who had also defaulted in making good the balance 75% of the bid amount for a plot adjoining the petitioner?s and yet its plot had not been put up for reauctioning by the DDA, counsel for the respondent/DDA was directed to obtain instructions as to the fate of the representation made by the aforesaid party pursuant to liberty granted to it by the Court while disposing of a petition filed by it registered as WP(C)No.477/2010 entitled M/s. Ideas Plus Ink Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. DDA & Ors.?

(2.) Counsel for the respondent/DDA states today, on instructions from his client, that DDA has decided to reject the representation of M/s Ideas Plus Ink Constructions (P) Ltd. and it proposes to re-auction the said plot, for which purpose, the file of the case has been put up before the competent authority for appropriate orders. Now that the respondent/DDA has clarified its position with regard to the adjoining plot, the plea of the petitioner that it is being treated by DDA on a different footing, does not hold true.

(3.) In so far as the merits of the present case are concerned, it is undisputed that the petitioner had participated in a bid for auction of residential plots by the DDA in the year 2008 and was declared as the successful bidder in respect of the subject plot No.131 Pocket-II, Jasola, Delhi, deposited 25% ( '1,25,00,000/-) of the total bid amount, i.e., '4,96,50,000/-, as earnest money. As per the terms and conditions for sale by auction, the petitioner was required to deposit the balance 75% of the bid amount, i.e., '3,71,000/-, by 21.7.2008, but it grossly defaulted in doing so. The explanation offered by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the default in payment is that there was a recession in the market, as a result of which the petitioner was facing a financial crunch and hence requests were made by it to the respondent/DDA for extension of time to arrange funds to make good the balance payment. Pertinently, requests made by the petitioner for extension of time starting from June, 2008 continued to be repeated from time to time, without a single penny being paid by it to the respondent/DDA in the meantime towards the balance 75 % of the bid amount.