G VEERABHADRA RAO Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., the 1st respondent had conducted auction for sale of a house bearing No.MIG 20 at Jawahar Auto Nagar Housing Complex, APIIC Colony, Vijayawada on 09.04.1996. The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.2,26,000.00. He made the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.10,000.00. He was issued a letter of allotment dated 12.4.1996, requiring him to pay 50% of the sale consideration within 15 days and to pay the remaining 50%.

(2.) Within six months with interest at 18% to be compounded after every three months. On receiving the letter of allotment, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 26.4.1996 requesting the respondents to grant time upto 31.5.1996, for payment of initial 50% of the consideration. While the representation was pending with the respondent, one Battu Komala Sarani, filed W.P.No.7917 of 1996, challenging the auction of the said house. This Court passed interim order on 15.4.1996. On receipt of the same, the respondents addressed a letter dated 2.5.1996 to the petitioner informing that in view of the orders of this Court in the said Writ Petition, they can not accept the first instalment of 50% of the consideration. The petitioner was informed that either he can wait till the disposal of the Writ Petition, or take back the Earnest Money Deposit paid by him. The petitioner did not respond to this letter in any form. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 10.07.1992.

(3.) After dismissal of the Writ Petition, the respondents addressed a letter dated 17.7.2003 to the petitioner stating that the offer of allotment issued to him on 12.4.1996 is withdrawn and enclosed a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.10,000.00. The respondents have also issued a notification on the same day proposing to auction the house bearing No. MIG 20. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents. He contends that the allotment in his favour could not fructify only on account of the interim orders granted by this Court in W.P.No.7917 of 1996 and after dismissal of the same, the respondents did not call upon him to pay the consideration. It is his case that he was not aware of the progress of W.P.No.7917 of 1996, since he was not a party to it and the respondents were under an obligation to call upon him to pay the balance consideration soon after the dismissal of writ petition.