(1.) AS the facts are similarly in both the writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE Notified Area Committee, Manimajra put certain sites to sale in public auction held on 30th June, 1990. The petitioner in CWP No. 9304 of 1994 and the petitioners in CWP No. 9305 of 1994 participated in the said auction. The petitioner Roshan Lal Jindal in CWP No. 9304 of 1994 became the highest bidder in respect of Booth site No. 1042, NAC, Mani Majra, while in respect of Atta-Chakki sites bearing No. 1038-1039 the petitioners in CWP No. 9305 of 1994, Roshan Lal Jindal, Moti Lal Jindal and Ashok Kumar Jindal became the highest bidders. The petitioners deposited 25 per cent of the bid money on the conclusion of the said auction. Thereafter the petitioners wanted to surrender the said sites to the Notified Area Committee as the area was not developed and there was a grave-yard and Masjid and some saw mills were also in existence at the site. Accordingly, they wrote to the Notified Area Committee on 17. 11. 1992 surrendering the plot which they purchased in the public auction held on 30. 6. 1990. The surrender was accepted and 10 per cent of the bid amount out of 25 per cent of the amount deposited by them at the time of public auction was refunded to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, only an amount of 10 per cent of 25 per cent of the bid money is liable to forfeited and not 10 per cent of the total bid money. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court for seeking issuance of a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount deposited by them after deducting 10 per cent out of 25 per cent of the bit money. According to the Notified Area Committee, it is entitled to forfeit 10 percent of the total bid money and not 10, percent of the 25 per cent of the bid as contended by the petitioners.
(3.) SINCE the Committee felt that there was some ambiguity in clause 18, it passed a fresh resolution on 23. 8. 1991, which reads as follows :