SURJEET DHALL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:

(2.) The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under:-

(3.) Mr. Sajal Manchanda, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/bidder, submits that the Petitioner sought for extension of time from the Respondent/DDA to pay the balance 75% of the premium amount on three occasions and on all occasions the extension was sought well within the prescribed time limit of 90 days. He submits that this shows the bona fide of the Petitioner/bidder and the action of the Respondent/DDA in issuing the letter dtd. 27/12/2019, cancelling the allotment of the Petitioner and forfeiting the EMD amount, is arbitrary and illegal.