G BHARATI DEVI Vs. HYDERABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are successful bidders in respect of seven plots situated in nalagandla Residential Complex, near BHEL township, Hyderabad, in the auction held by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, respondent No. 1 herein, in pursuance of auction notification dated 28/2/2006, filed this writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in handing over of possession of the plots to them by providing infrastructure facilities, as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300-A of the constitution of India. The petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to hand over possession of the auctioned property after providing all the infrastructural facilities.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 issued notification for sale of vacant plots' situated in different areas, included in the Hyderabad Urban agglomeration. In respect of the plots relating to Nallagandla Residential Complex, tender-cum-auction was conducted on 28/2/2006. The petitioners emerged highest bidders in respect of seven plots, the details of which are mentioned in the table given below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_214_ALT2_2008Html1.htm</FRM> As per Clause 5 (m) of the Terms and conditions of the Tender Notification for allotment of Plots (for short "the Tender conditions") fixed by respondent No. 1, Initial deposit (I. D), which includes Earnest Money deposit (EMD), shall be payable within seven working days from the date of auction without any interest. The said Clause further provided that if the highest bidder fails to make such payment, the bid will not be confirmed and the auction in respect of such plot is deemed to have been cancelled by forfeiting the EMD, and that the bidder will have no further right.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, though they were ready to pay the bid amount, respondents were unable to deliver possession of the plots after completing necessary works for providing infrastructure viz. , demarcation of plots, water supply, drainage system etc. It is their further case that they approached the respondents with a request to complete the above mentioned works, but without fulfilling the said requirements, the respondents issued notices dated 20-6-2006 to the petitioners, calling upon them to remit the I. D amounts, excluding the EMD, on or before 30-6-2006 and indicating therein that if they failed to do so, the bids will be cancelled and the EMD forfeited. The petitioners further pleaded that they gave replies on 30-6-2006 to the said notices of the respondents, wherein they have stated that the respondents failed to undertake and complete the infrastructural facilities as promised by them in the tender conditions even after a lapse of four months from the date of auction and they have also requested the respondents not to reduce the plot sizes and maintain the road width upto 60' instead of 40', and that till the completion of all the infrastructural works, demand for payment of the I. D amount may not be made. In their affidavits, the petitioners further maintained that they have personally inspected the auctioned plots on 29-6-2006 and 25-7-2006 and noticed that the respondents have not initiated any steps to provide infrastructure and demarcate the land into plots. According to the petitioners, without discharging their obligation of demarcation of plots and providing infrastructure, the respondents cannot demand the I. D amount and threaten them to cancel the bid and forfeit the EMD.