JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The petitioners participated in an auction held by respondent No. 1 on 26.11.1991 and were the highest bidders for plot No. 8, Pocket IV, Block C, Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi and deposited the initial 25% amount at the time of fall of hammer amounting to Rs. 4,50,000/- out of the total amount of Rs. 18 lacs. The petitioners further deposited a sum of Rs. 5 lacs on 9.1.1992, but did not deposit the balance amount and requested for extension of time for making the said balance payment. The time period was extended up to 2.4.1992. On 18.3.1992, the petitioners further deposited a sum of Rs. 4,54,225/. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 14,04,225/- out of the total amount of Rs. 18 lacs was deposited within the time being 75% of the bid amount. The petitioner has stated that thereafter the mother of the petitioner fell sick and due to her ailment as well as disputes within the family, the balance 25% amount was not deposited. No action was also taken by the respondent No. 1 during this period of time and a show-cause notice was finally issued on 12.10.1993 calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the said allotment of plot be not cancelled, as a consequence of the petitioners’ failure to deposit balance 25% of the amount being Rs. 3,95,775/-. The petitioners immediately deposited this balance amount along with interest of Rs. 4,225/- totaling to Rs. 4 lacs. The petitioner also on the same date replied to the said show-cause notice and requested them in view of the fact that the full amount has been deposited with interest, no further action should be taken for cancellation of the plot.
2. The respondent No. 1 thereafter failed to take any action and it is only on 6.6.1997 after lapse of three and a half years, the decision was taken to cancel the allotment in favor of the petitioners. The petitioners approached this Court aggrieved by the said decision. On 27.1.2000, Counsel for respondent No. 1 informed this Court that DDA had no jurisdiction to condone the delay of payment for Installments beyond a period of 180 days and a reference has been made to the Central Government by the respondent No. 1 since the Central Government, respondent No. 2 was the competent authority. It was stated that such a reference would be made and the matter was thereafter adjourned. The decision was taken by the respondent No. 2 vide intimation dated 16.10.2000 rejecting the request of the petitioners and this was informed to the Court on 13.3.2001 whereupon the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought time to move an application for amendment of the writ petition to challenge the said decision. Counter affidavit was filed to the amended writ petition, though it appears that inadvertently no formal order was passed on the said application, which has been allowed today.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly admits that there has been delay on behalf of the petitioner in depositing the balance 25% amount, but submits that the same was on account of certain unavoidable family circumstances. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Reliable Laboratories (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority and Anr. reported as 43 (1991) DLT 312, wherein it was held that there was no reason for the respondent authority to accept the balance amount, if the plot had to be cancelled. The cancellation took place after the balance amount had been paid and a writ of mandamus was issued directing that the cancellation should not be given effect to and the possession of the plot be handed over.
4. The aforesaid judgment was also referred to in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dimpy Fashions (India) v. Delhi Development Authority reported as 46 (1992) DLT 176 (DB). The said case also dealt with similar situation where a reference had also been made to the Central Government for extension of time, but the same had been declined. It was held that the admitted position was that the Central Government in deserving cases extended time in depositing the balance bid amount and in that cases even the DDA had recommended cases of the petitioners for seeking further relaxation. The Court directed interest to be paid on the belated amount.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, contends that the petitioners cannot seek specific performance of a contract through the present writ petition and that there is no time-limit prescribed for deciding the issue whether the bid of the petitioner was to be cancelled or otherwise. Learned Counsel referred to the Division bench judgment of this Court in G. Ram v. Delhi Development Authority reported as 98 (2002) DLT 850 (DB)=2002 VII AD (DELHI) 241. The said case was one dealing with the refund of the earnest money in view of the fact that the petitioner therein had another flat under an agreement for sale, which disentitled him to the second flat. The writ petition filed by the petitioner therein was dismissed and the letters patent appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submit that it is not that in every case there should be extension of time granted by the Central Government whenever such an application is made.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.
8. There is undoubtedly delay on the part of the petitioner in making 25% of the bid amount, though 75% of the bid amount was deposited in time. The respondent No. 1 unfortunately failed to take any decision to either accept or reject the bid after the extended period of time expired on 2.4.1992. It is only on 12.10.1993 after one and a half years, a show-cause notice was issued and in pursuance to the said show-cause notice, the petitioners deposited the said balance amount along with some interest on 19.11.1993. The matter did not even rest at that, since the respondent No. 1 took the decision to cancel the plot after more than three and a half years on 6.6.1997.
9. There can be no about about the proposition that it is not in every case, such an extension has to be given as a matter of right. However, the provision has been made for the respondent No. 1 to extend the time up to 180 days and thereafter the authority is vested with the respondent No. 2. This discretionary authority must be exercised in a reasonable and fair manner.
10. In my considered view, the most important aspect of the matter is the inaction in pursuance to the failure of the petitioners to deposit the amount for one and a half years and thereafter to sit on a decision for three and a half years after the petitioners had deposited the full amount. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 1 is not bound by the time-limit. A decision has to be taken by the public authority within a reasonable period of time. The time period mentioned above can hardly be called reasonable.
11. The aforesaid aspects should have been duly considered by the respondent No. 2 while considering the request of the petitioners for condensation of delay in making the payment, when 75% of the bid amount, in any case, was paid within time and the balance amount was also deposited, but no decision was taken thereafter for three and a half years. I am, thus, of the considered view that it was a fit case where the Central Government should have exercised its power given the facts and circumstances of the case to extend the period of time and the petitioner would have been entitled to the plot in question. If any further interest was chargeable on account of the delayed payment of 25% amount, the same could have been recovered from the petitioners.
12. The judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners apply in all fours in the present case. Reliance Laboratories’ case (supra) dealt with the issue where payments have been deposited belatedly and had been so accepted. In Dimpy Fashions’ case (supra), the jurisdiction of the Central Government to extend the period has been considered and it has to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. In my considered view, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in G. Ram’s case (supra) would have no application in the present case, as the petitioner therein was claiming refund of the earnest money and the same was denied in view of the fact the he was having ownership rights in another flat.
13. It may be noticed that the petitioners, despite having made the payments in 1993, are without the plot for the last ten years and have suffered enough, though the same is largely their creation. I am further of the considered view that in view of the delay on the part of the petitioners in making the payment for the balance 25% of the bid amount, the petitioners must pay interest from 2.4.1992, i.e., the date of extension for making the payment, to 19.11.1993, when the payment was so made. The petitioners are liable to make payment of interest (c) 18% per annum less the amount of Rs. 4,225/- already deposited on account of interest.
14. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent No. 1 to issue a demand letter on the petitioner for the interest amount as aforesaid within the period of four weeks from today and on the petitioners making the payment in pursuance thereof and completing the necessary formalities, the possession of the plot should be handed over to the petitioners within a period of two weeks of completion of such formalities.
15. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.