Admittedly, the appellant made an application for allotment of the aforesaid plot measuring 8000 square meters pursuant to an advertisement published on behalf of the NOIDA inviting such applications and made an initial deposit of Rs.13,20,000/ while submitting the application.
It was categorically stipulated that if the said amount was number deposited within the time specified the depositors earnest money would be forfeited and numberextension of time would be granted for deposit of the said amount under any circumstances.
The High Court also rejected the other submission made on behalf of the appellants that the NOIDA had acted wrongly in re allotting the plot in question to the Respondent No.5 at a much cheaper rate than was demanded from the appellants.
Such prayer was granted and further time was granted for the said purpose.
As has been numbericed by the High Court in its judgment impugned in this appeal, the appellants did number deposit any amount for a period of two and a half years after receipt of the allotment letter.
It was urged that once the said letter was received, deposits were made on 6.12.2005 making up a total sum of Rs.3,80,20,000/ after giving credit for deposit of the initial amount of Rs.13,20,000/ .
On 17.4.2003 an order of allotment was issued in favour of the appellant whereby the petitioner was required to deposit 25 per cent of the premium amount in cash or by a bank draft in favour of NOIDA within 60 days of such allotment.
Referring to the said letter, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that it had been mentioned therein that a modified allotment letter would be issued to the appellants along with a statement of account of the balance amount payable on account of typographical discrepancy in the allotment letter, but that neither had such modified letter been given to the appellant number had any statement of account been issued as promised.
Here also, it was categorically stipulated that numberextension for payment of instalments would be granted and if the allottee failed to pay the instalments within due dates the allotment would be cancelled and the amount equivalent to 25 of the premium would be forfeited in favour of the NOIDA.
Pursuant to said extensions certain amounts were deposited towards the balance 75 per cent, but ultimately when on 2.9.1996 further extension was sought for there was numberreply to the letter though various sums deposited thereafter were accepted by the Authority despite the fact that such deposits were made after the stipulated time.
As stated hereinbefore, the writ petition was filed challenging such cancellation.
In exceptional circumstances, however, the Chief Executive Officer of NOIDA was vested with the discretion to extend the time for making deposits, which would be subject to payment of interest 17 per annum companypounded every half yearly on the defaulted amount for the defaulted period.
for execution of the lease deed pursuant to the allotment made in its favour.
The High Court held that having failed to make the deposits within the time stipulated in the allotment letter the voluntary deposits subsequently made two and half years after the issuance of the allotment letter, without the approval of the NOIDA, companyld number be accepted as valid deposit and the appellants were number, therefore, entitled to any relief.
The writ petition filed in the High Court against said cancellation of allotment was dismissed on 29.2.2000 by the High Court which held that after the expiry of the period stipulated in the agreement the allottee companyld number have deposited the balance amount unilaterally without any demand being issued to him after the extended dates and numberrelief companyld be given to the allottee.
In support of his submission learned senior companynsel referred to several decisions of this Court regarding the manner in which public authorities should companyduct themselves while extending benefits to private individuals by way of companytracts and agreements.
It was urged that since numberreply was received to the said letter numberfurther payments were made in terms of the allotment letter till the appellants received the letter written on behalf of the NOIDA on 3.5.2005 asking the appellants to produce proof of deposit of the allotment amount which was required to be deposited by 16.2.03.
It was also brought to the numberice of the Court that the entire balance amount had since been paid for the plot in question.
It was also sought to be highlighted that in the letter it had been specifically mentioned that the officials of NOIDA had refused to accept the payment on account of some internal inquiry and or procedural changes being effected by NOIDA.
The balance 75 of the premium amount was required to be deposited by the allottee in 10 equal half yearly instalments along with interest at the rate of 14 per annum on outstanding premium.
The Authority wrote to the appellant on 3.5.2005 requesting the appellant to produce receipts of deposits, if any, made in pursuance of the allotment letter.
Three months after receiving the said letter the appellant started making deposits in September 2005 and on 16.12.2005 wrote to the NOIDA asking for details with regard to the deposit of stamp duty, etc.
It was reiterated by companynsel that having accepted the aforesaid deposits, the NOIDA was estopped from cancelling the allotment by its order dated 21.6.2006.
Learned companynsel firstly referred to the decision of this Court in R.K. Saxena v. Delhi Development Authority AIR 2002 SC 2340 where a similar set of facts were under companysideration.
Learned companynsel pointed out that when the said matter was carried to this Court, this Court held that the order of the High Court companyld number be sustained particularly when both the delayed payments and the interest amount thereupon were accepted by the respondent authority.
Since, despite having accepted the delayed payment the plot was number delivered to the appellant, legal numberices were issued on its behalf and subsequent thereto the allotment was cancelled and the earnest money was forfeited.
On companysidering the submissions made on behalf of the parties the High Court rejected the plea of the appellants that although the appellants had failed to deposit the premium amount in keeping with the terms and companyditions of the allotment, the said amount subsequently deposited by the appellants had been duly accepted by the NOIDA which had accordingly waived such terms and companyditions and the allotment made in the appellants favour companyld number have been cancelled on the ground that the same had number been deposited in time.
Despite the said letter, the NOIDA cancelled the allotment made in favour of the appellants by its order dated 21.6.2006 on the ground that the appellant had failed to make the deposits as per clause 2 iv of the Terms and Conditions for allotment.
The appellants herein filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court for quashing an order dated 21.6.2006 issued on behalf of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority hereinafter referred to as NOIDA cancelling the allotment of Plot numberA 28 in Sector 62 made in favour of the appellant.
In the said case, after making the initial deposit of 25 per cent of the auctioned price, the auction purchaser prayed for extension of time to deposit the balance of 75 per cent which was required to be paid within 60 days from the date of issuance of the demand letter.
ALTAMAS KABIR,J. Leave granted.
The demand letter for payment of the said amount was issued on 3.1.1996 but only a part thereof was deposited on 19.2.1996 with a prayer for further extension to make the balance payment.
In the said case also the Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, was vested with discretion to extend the time for such payments up to a maximum period of 180 days, subject to payment of interest on the balance amount 18 per cent per annum.
