A single Bench of Justice Subramanian Prasad was of the opinion that the action of the Delhi Development Authority of cancelling the bid of the petitioner abruptly was was unconscionable and unacceptable and is against the principle of equity and good conscience.
The instant writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned order dated July 14, 2021 passed by the Director, Delhi Development Authority wherein the petitioner’s request for allotment of a plot located in Delhi at 85 % of bid was rejected and allotment was cancelled.
Facts in brief for institution of the preset writ petition were that on June 1, 2019, the Delhi Development Authority issued an advertisement with respect to the e- auction of the properties. Consequently, the petitioner was declared to be the highest bidder with respect to the demised plot.
Thereafter, the demise plot was inspected by the architect hired by the petitioner and on inspection the petitioner was apprised of the fact that the actual area of the same was lesser notified by the DDA. In pursuance of the same , the petitioner wrote the DDA on August 19, 2019 requesting verification of the dimensions of the demised plot and sought for reduction of the demised plot.
However, through order dated July 14, 2021, DDA rejected the petitioner’s request for allotment of the 85 % of the H1 bid amount. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner was restricted to approach this Court by way of writ petition.
The Court after hearing the submissions of both the parties noted that through an order dated September 29, 2020 this Court had already directed the DDA to treat the writ petition as representation and also to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner, the same was ruled by this Court by placing reliance on the case of Gaurav Enterprises v. Delhi Development Authority.
The Court further observed that the facts of the aforesaid case were similar to the instant case. It also noted that in the precedent cited above there was more than 15% variation in the area of the plot, still the contentions of the DDA were rejected and noted that the that the Petitioner therein harbored a reasonable expectation after duly following the conditions stipulated in the bid. In view of the same, the Court observed that in the present case the Petitioner duly fulfilled the conditions set out for due registration and execution of the Conveyance Deed, and as a principle of equity, the impugned Order dated July 14, 2021 should be set aside.
It was further observed by the Court that Clause (5) of Part- I of Chapter – III on General Terms and Conditions of the E-Auction states that the area of residential plots announced is only approximate, and bidders must be prepared to accept a variation of up to 15%, subject to adjustment of cost in proportion to the amount of the accepted bid.
Additionally, the Court stated that the petitioner's case was not even disputed by the DDA, that the Petitioner had reiterated its request for clarification as well as reduction on the value of the plot orally as well as by visiting the office of the DDA physically several times. Multiple communications had been made on behalf of the Petitioner, even before the issuance of the Letter of Intent. The Petitioner was also ready to bear a greater loss, the Court remarked.
In view of the above observations, the Court opined that DDA coming within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India was obligated to adhere to the principles of Natural Justice. It is trite law that writ Courts must not hesitate to exercise their jurisdiction under Article 226 where the actions of the State are violative of fundamental rights under our Constitution as being wholly unreasonable and unfair, and that in such circumstances, Courts must grant relief in favour of a person where both law and equity demand that such relief should be granted, the Court observed.
Thus, the Court was of the view that actions of DDA to arbitrarily return the amount of the petitioner without any intimation, and then rejection of the allotment of the demised plot to the Petitioner vide impugned order dated July 14, 2021 was unconscionable and unacceptable and is against the principle of equity and good conscience. Hence, the present petition was allowed in light of the findings stated above.
edia is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments