GOPI CHAND vs VICE CHAIRMAN, D.D.A.

BRIEFLY the facts are that a plot bearing No. C-2(u)/7 situated in Pitampura, Residential Scheme, Delhi was auctioned on 6th January'' 88 and the complainants gave highest bid of Rs. 2,45,000/- for the same. The reserve price of the plot was Rs. 2,44,104/-. It is alleged that the bid of the complainants being highest was accepted by the officer auctioning the plot and they were directed to deposit Rs. 61,250/- i.e. 25% of the bid amount as earnest money in the Bank in the amount of DDA. They deposited the said amount in the Central Bank of India, Vikas Sadan. They were also informed that the further demand letter for the balance amount would be sent to them at their residential address.

IN the month of April 1988 they received a letter dated 15th April 1988 from the DDA to the effect that the bid of the plot in dispute had not been accepted by the Vice-Chairman, DDA and consequently a cheque dated 25th March, 1988 deposited by them on account of earnest money was being returned. It is alleged by the complainants that the said letter was illegal and arbitrary and consequently liable to be quashed. The complaint has been contested by the respondent. They have admitted that the plot was auctioned for an amount of Rs. 2,45,000/- and the complainants deposited the amount of Rs 61,250/- at the fall of the hammer. The other allegations of the complainants have been denied by them. It is pleaded that the Vice-Chairman was the accepting authority of the bid and as per terms of the auction he could reject the bid even without assigning any reason. It is further pleaded that the Vice Chairman did not accept the bid of the complainants and ordered the refund of the earnest money deposited by them, which was legal and valid.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the complainants that the officer conducting the auction accepted the bid of the complainants which was the highest and in pursuance of that they deposited 25% of the bid amount. Later their bid could not be rejected, and the amount deposited by them could not be ordered to be refunded by the DDA.

WE have duly considered the arguments of the learned counsel, but do not find any substance therein. The relevant conditions relating to auction are conditions No. 2, 3 & 6 which are as follows :- "2. The officer conducting the auction shall normally accept subject to the confirmation by the Vice-Chairman, DDA the highest bid offered at the fall of harmer at the auction and the person whose bid has been accepted shall pay as earnest money a sum equivalent to 25% of his bid either in cash or by Bank Draft in favour of Delhi Development Authority. If the earnest money is not paid, the auction already held in respect of that plot shall be cancelled. 3. The Officer conducting the auction may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and submitted to the V.C. reject any bid including the highest bid. The highest bid may be rejected without assigning any reason. 4. When the bid is accepted by the V.C, D.D.A., the intending purchaser shall be informed of such acceptance in writing and the intending purchaser shall pay within one month from the date of issue of the demand letter and the balance amount of the bid by the Bank Draft in favour of the Delhi Development. Authority. If the bid is not accepted the earnest money will be refunded to the intending purchaser without any interest unless the earnest money is forfeited under Para 11(4) above. If the last date on which the amount of premium falls due happens to be a Sunday or a holiday, then amount will become payable on the next working day. No extension of time will be allowed."

(emphasis supplied by underlining) Condition No. 2 provides that the auction is subject to the confirmation of the Vice-Chairman, DDA. Condition No. 6 further says that if the bid is not accepted by the Vice-Chairman, the earnest money shall be refunded to the intending purchaser. It is, thus, clear that the final authority to approve the auction is Vice-Chairman. It is true, that the Officer conducting the auction has been authorised to reject the bid but while doing so he has to record the reasons and submit the same to the Vice-Chairman. The Vice-Chairman can refuse to accept the bid even after that has been accepted by the auctioning officer. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that condition No. 3 is a pointer to the fact that only the officer conducting the auction could reject the bid and not the Vice-Chairman of the DDA. According to him once he had accepted the bid, Vice-Chairman could not reject the same. WE are not convinced with this contention. It is well- settled principal of interpretation of statues that all the conditions of the auction should be read harmoniously. If we do so, the only conclusion is that the authority which has been empowered to accept the bid finally is the Vice-Chairman. He has the authority not to accept the bid even after it has been accepted by the officer auctioning the plot. Condition No. 3 & Condition No. 6 operate in different fields. It is clear from the letter dated 15.4.88 that the Vice-Chairman exercised his discretion under Condition No. 6. Faced with this situation the counsel for the complainants has argued that the complainants are entitled to damages as they were deprived of the use of Rs. 61,250/- for a period of three months. WE do not find any substance in the said arguments too. The Vice-Chairman of the respondent has not accepted the bid in terms and conditions of the auction. No doubt it is true that three months time was taken by the Vice-Chairman to take the decision regarding the auction, but, in a big organisation like DDA it does take sometime to the highest authority to take a decision. However, we would have appreciated if the decision had been taken by him expeditiously. WE are of the opinion that the complainants are not entitled to damages. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss the same with costs. Costs Rs. 1,000/-. Complaint dismissed.