SATPAL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Letters Patent appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 2nd April, 2008 whereby appellants-petitioners' writ petition was dismissed on the ground that in view of the specific terms and 8 conditions of Narela Housing Scheme 2004, respondent-DDA was justified in refusing to condone the delay of about 18 months on the part of appellants-petitioners in making payment of balance amount. Learned Single Judge further upheld the cancellation of appellants-petitioners' allotment as legal and valid. The relevant extract of the impugned order dated 2nd April, 2008 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

(2.) MS. Richa Kapoor, learned counsel for appellants-petitioners contended that respondent-DDA had arbitrarily adopted a policy of pick and choose inasmuch as in similarly situated cases, respondent-DDA had accepted payments much after appellants-petitioners had tendered payment. In this connection, she relied upon the following four cases:-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for appellants-petitioners also referred to the case of Mrs. Geeta Sharma who had deposited the balance amount after 22nd December, 2004.