DEVENDER KUMAR Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the revised demand letters dated 13.2.1992, 14.2.1992 and 17.2.1992, Annexures P-l, P-2 and P-3 issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioners.

(2.) Facts in substance set out in the petition are that in pursuance to the advertisement issued by respondent No.2 for allotment of certain shops to the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes, petitioners being Scheduled Castes applied for the allotment of such .he shops/stalls to them. In pursuance of Draw of Lots held byrespondent No. 1, petitioners were allotted shops. Thereafter vide allotment-cum -demand letters dated 18.11.1988, the respondent No. 1 called upon them to deposit 25 percent of the reserve price of the shop/ stall allotted to them within 60 days. As per terms of the Scheme, the balance premium of 75 percent was to bepaid in 24 equal monthly instalments carrying interest at the rate of 6% per annum, after the possession of the shops had been handed over to them. Petitioners, accordingly deposited the amount demanded in the allotment-cum-demand letters within time and thereafter respondent No. 1 handed over the possession of the shops to the petitioners immediately towards the end of December,1991. Thereafter the petitioners commenced their business in such shops. However, after a period of one year and three months of giving possession the respondent No.2 has issued revised demand notices dated 13.2.1992,14.2.1992and 17.2.1992, which are Annexures P-l, P-2 and P-3 inrespect of the shops allotted to the petitioners whereby the price of the shops, as originally fixed, has been revised and which are subject matter of the challenge in the writ petition. According to the petitioners, it was represented to them that shops would be allotted to them at a fixed reserve price, 25 percent of which was indicated in the allotment-cum-demand letters dated 18.11.1988, collectively referred to as Annexure P-5 and that was paid and now the respondent cannot be permitted to raise the reserve price by raising this further demand under the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the principles of natural justice. Such an increase in demand of reserve price of the shops is also stated to be illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) The stand taken by the respondent in the reply is that the revised demand letters issued on 13.2.92, 14.2.92 and 17.2.92 are regarding recovery of balance of 25% of the reserve price of shop No.21, LSC at Paschim Puri Block A-1, Shop No. 104, HOG Market at Rajender Place and shop No. 19 at Saraswati Vihar Block-C respec p73 tively and monthly instalment of these shops. 25% of the Reserve price is charged as initial deposit and balance 75% is charged in 24 equal monthly instalments. There is no dispute that 75% balance has to be charged in 24 equal monthly instalments. The price raised by the impugned demand is for the balance of 25% reserve price.