Judgment:
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. This is a petition to direct the respondents to hand over the possession of institutional site No. 87, Sector 32, Gurgaon to the petitioners and to issue allotment letter in their favour.
2. A Few Facts : In response to advertisement issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter described as 'HUDA') in April/May, 1990, inviting applications from Government Organisations and Public Sector Undertakings as well as non-Government Companies/ Organisations for allotment of plots in institutional area in Sector 32, Gurgaon, the petitioner No. 1 applied for one acre plot in the category of non-Government Companies/Organisations. A sum of Rs. 6,07,500/ was also deposited by the petitioners towards 10 percent of the total cost of land. The petitioner No. 1 made representations dated 20th April, 1991 and 17th July, 1991 requesting the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon to let it know about the allotment of plot. The respondent No. 2 responded to the last communication of the petitioner by writing Annexure P5 dated 13.8.1991, whereby he told the petitioner No. 1 that it would be informed about the allotment as soon as the matter was decided.
2. According to the petitioners, they did not receive any intimation from respondent No. 2 regarding allotment of the institutional site in Sector 32 till the receipt of letter dated 26.2.1992 (Annexure P6), whereby the Director of the petitioner was asked to make payment of 25 per cent of the amount. Assertion of the petitioners is that although this letter makes reference to Memo No. A-5-92/1442 dated 31.1.1992, the same was never received by them and, therefore, they had no occasion to make payment of the amount as per the demand made by the HUDA officials whereas the respondent have pleaded that letter dated 31.1.1992 was sent to the petitioner No. 1 at their given address and it must have been received by the officials of the petitioner No. 1.
3. On receipt of letter dated 26.2.1992, the petitioner No. 1 wrote to the Estate Officer indicating that 10 per cent of the total cost had already been deposited and, therefore, demand for deposit of 25 per cent of the price was not correct. It was also stated that the letter dated 31.1.1992 had not been received. The petitioner No. 1 further wrote that intimation may be sent to it regarding the institutional site number together with location and the amount payable so that it could proceed further in the matter. The petitioner also requested the respondent No. 2 to intimate when physical possession of the site would be delivered. After about two years, the petitioner received Cheque No. 963801 dated 14.1.1994 for Rs. 6,07,500/- from the respondent No. 2 alongwith his letter dated 17.1.1994. Petitioner says that by refunding the 10 per cent amount deposited by it in the year 1990, the respondent No. 2 has indirectly rejected the application of the petitioner for allotment of institutional site and this action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. Another plea of the petitioner is that after having made them to part with the huge money in the form of 10 per cent of total price of the plot, the respondents cannot refuse to allot institutional site to them.
4. Respondents have opposed the writ petition by making assertion that on account of failure of the petitioner to deposit 15 per cent amount within 30 days from the date of issue of letter (Annexure Rl) dated 31.1.1992, the petitioner No. 1 made itself ineligible to the allotment of institutional site. Respondents have also pleaded that even after receipt of communication dated 10.7.1992 (Annexure R4), the petitioner No. 1 did not deposit the requisite amount forcing the respondent No. 2 to cancel the offer of allotment of the institutional plot No. 87.
5. In the replication filed by it, the petitioner has reiterated its stand that letter dated 31.1.1992 was never received by it and, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to cancel the offer of allotment of institutional site which was made to the petitioners in the year 1990.
6. Before we consider the main point raised in the writ petition, it will be appropriate to take notice of the fact that on 19.10.1995, this Court had directed the petitioners to file representation before the Chief Administrator, HUDA, who was required to take final decision on that representation by 19.12.1995. Subsequently this time period was extended by the Court and the Chief Administrator decided the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure P11. He held that by its failure to deposit 25 per cent of the total cost, the petitioner No. 1 made itself liable to the cancellation of offer of allotment.
7. The only issue which requires adjudication by the Court is whether the respondents have acted illegally in refusing to give possession of the institutional site to the petitioners and by refunding 10 per cent amount deposited by the petitioners in the year 1990 without interest. While Shri J. K. Sibal argued that the respondents did not communicate the letter of allotment to the petitioners with mala fide intention in order to manipulate allotment of plot to some other person and the petitioners cannot be blamed for the so called failure to deposit remaining 15 per cent of the price of the plot. Shri Arun Monga argued that the letter dated 31.1.1992 must be deemed to have been served upon the petitioners because it was sent at the address given by the Petitioner No. 1. Shri Monga argued that the letter dated 31.1.1992 was despatched to the petitioner No. 1 at the address supplied by it and, therefore, in the normal course it must have been delivered to the officials of petitioner No. 1 but they failed to deposit the remaining 15 per cent of the price and raised wholly untenable points in their letter dated 5th March, 1992. Shri Monga further submitted that even if letter dated 31.1.1992 had not been received by the petitioner No. 1, at least the copies of letter dated 26.2.1992 and letter dated 10.7.1992 had been received by the petitioner No. 1 but even then the petitioner did not deposit 15 per cent amount so as to fulfill the conditions contained in para 1 (ii) of the terms and conditions which were required to be fulfilled by those who had applied for allotment of institutional sites and failure of the petitioners to meet with this requirement constitute a valid basis for not giving possession of the plot to the petitioners.
8. Perusal of Annexure Rl shows that it was addressed to the petitioner No. 1 at the address mentioned by it in the application submitted before the competent authority. By that letter, petitioner No. 1 was required to pay the remaining amount to the Estate Officer. Though the parties have a serious dispute whether Annexure R1 was received by the petitioner No. 1 or not but there is no controversy between them that letter Annexure P6 dated 26.2.1992 and copy of letter Annexure R4 dated 10.7.1992 had been received by the petitioner No. 1. Even thereafter the petitioner did not deposit the 15 per cent amount. Paras 1 (ii) and 2 of the advertisement through which applications were invited for various categories of plots including the institutional plots read thus:
'1. (i) Only such applications shall be deemed to be valid as are accompanied by earnest money equivalent to 10% of the tentative sale price in the form of cash receipt/ demand draft in favour of the Estate Officer, Gurgaon payable at authorised branches of the banks.
(ii) The applicant shall, unless he/she refuses to accept the allotment within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter, deposit with the Estate Officer within that period, the remaining 15% of the tentative sale' price, or such other amount which together with the earnest money equals at least 25% of the tentative sale price of the site. In case of failure to deposit the said amount within 30 days, time period may be extended for 60 more days, on payment of interest @ 18% per annum. If payment is not made within this period, the allotment shall be cancelled and the deposit of 10% earnest money paid with the application also forfeited against which applicant shall have no claim for damages.
2. (1) The remaining 75% of the tentative sale price may be paid as under:-
(a) Either in lumpsum without interest within 60 days of the issue of allotment letter in the form of a bank draft payable to the Estate Office, Gurgaon or
(b) In four (4), six-monthly instalments alongwith interest @ 18% per annum on unpaid portion.
(c) If there is any delay in the payment of instalment, penal interest at the rate of 3% per annum shall be charged in addition.'
9. A careful reading of the above extracted portion of the advertisement makes it clear that deposit of 10% of the tentative sale price was necessary for entertaining an application for allotment of institutional site. The applicant was also required to deposit 15% of the remaining tentative sale price within 30 days of issue of allotment letter. The period of 30 days could be extended for 60 more days on payment of interest with a clear stipulation that in case of the failure of the applicant to pay the amount within the total period (original and extended), the allotment shall be cancelled and the amount of 10% earnest money could be forfeited. Para 2 of the conditions required the allottee to pay remaining 75% of the tentative price in lumpsum without interest within 60 days of the issue of allotment letter or in four six monthly instalments alongwith interest @ 18% per annum on unpaid portion. For delayed payment, interest @ 3% per annum was payable.
10. The petitioner did receive Annexure P6 through which it was called upon to make payment of 25% amount within the stipulated period. Reply Annexure P7 dated 5th March, 1992 sent by the petitioner No. 1 shows that although it had made a grievance about non-receipt of letter dated 31.1.1992, the petitioner did enquire as to what was the site number, what was its location and the amount payable by it. It also enquired as to when physical possession of the site would be delivered and hoped that external development work would be completed before the delivery of physical possession. After this the petitioner received a copy of letter dated 10.7.1992 written by the Estate Officer to the Chief Administrator, HUDA. From this letter, the petitioner must have gathered the information that site No. 87 measuring 4050 Sq. meters was offered to it and it was required to deposit 15% amount within 30 days of 31.1.1992. In the copy forwarded to the petitioner No. 1, the Estate Officer had desired the petitioners to take necessary action. However, the petitioners did not take steps to deposit the remaining 15% amount and thereby they enabled the Estate Officer to cancel the offer of allotment. Indeed it is surprising that vide its letter Annexure P7 the petitioner No. 1 had enquired about the amount payable by it even though it was fully aware of the fact that it had to deposit 15% of Rs. 60,75,000/-.
11. We, therefore, do not find any reason to declare that the action taken by the respondent for cancellation of the offer of allotment of the institutional plot made to the petitioners is illegal. Rather it appears that after having toyed with the time for almost two years, the petitioners woke up only when the Estate Officer remitted the amount representing 10% of the sale price alongwith the letter Annexure P9, dated 17.1.1994. It further appears that after the steep escalation in the price of the site, the petitioners now want to get the property on the same price on which offer had been made to petitioner No. 1 in the year 1990. Acceptance of such claim would cause serious injury to the public interest because as on date the price of the plot will bring much more amount in the account of the Haryana Urban Development Authority.
12. However, there appears justification for directing the respondent HUDA to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 12% from the date of deposit to the date of refund.
13. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is held to be without substance and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioners shall get interest as indicated in the body of this order.