In W.P.(C) 7167/2021-DEL HC- Delhi Development Authority comes within ambit of “State” under Article 12 of Constitution and it is obligated to comply with principles of natural justice: Delhi HC Justice Subramonium Prasad[24-05-2022]

Read Order: MERTA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. Vs. THE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTORITY AND ANR.

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, May 25, 2022: The Delhi  High Court has held that the actions of DDA(Delhi Development Authority) to arbitrarily return the amount of the Petitioner without any intimation and then rejection of the allotment of the demised plot to the Petitioner is unacceptable and against the principle of equity and good conscience.

The Single Bench of Justice Subramanian Prasad was dealing with a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned order passed by the Director, DDA wherein the petitioner’s request for allotment of a plot located in Delhi at 85 % of bid amount was rejected and allotment was cancelled. 

Facts in brief were that 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 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 requested DDA for verification of the dimensions 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 Bench  placed reliance on the judgment in Gaurav Enterprises v. Delhi Development Authority wherein there was more than 15% variation in the area of the plot, still the contentions of the DDA were rejected and it was noted therein that the Petitioner 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 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. The Bench said, “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.”

Hence, the present petition was allowed in light of the findings stated above.