Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Smt. Nalini Aggarwal etc. etc.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos.3143-3145 of 1997.
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4085-87 of 1997)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.6.1996 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P.No. 992 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4085-87 of 1997)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.6.1996 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P.No. 992 of 1995)
Petitioner: Haryana Urban Development Authority
Respondent: Smt. Nalini Aggarwal etc. etc.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos.3143-3145 of 1997.
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4085-87 of 1997)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.6.1996 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P.No. 992 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4085-87 of 1997)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.6.1996 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P.No. 992 of 1995)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & D.P. WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 21, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. Puneet Bali and Mr. M.T. George, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. P. Aggarwal and Mr. F.C. Garg, -in-person for the Respondents.
Head Note:
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Allotment of houses – Draw of lots – Earnest money – Refund of, to unsuccessful applicants – Whether the applicants entitled to interest – Held that delay was due to administrative exigencies and not on account of any mala fide – In view of condition in notification inviting applications being for non-payment of interest for the period, during which money was lying with Haryana Urban Development Authority the respondents were not entitled to payment of interest for the interlude period of one year.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also parties-in-person.
2. Notification was issued calling for the applications for allotment of houses and the respondents had applied on April 20, 1993. The last date for making applications was May 31, 1993. After necessary steps were taken and scrutiny was made, lots were drawn on June 7, 1994. Since the respondents remained unsuccessful in the lots, the earnest money deposited by them refunded on July 20, 1994 within one month. The question, therefore, is: whether the unsuccessful applicants would be entitled to payment of interest for the period from the date of deposit till the date of refund? One of the conditions imposed in the notification inviting applications for allotment was that “No interest shall be payable on the money of the applicant for the period for which the same is lying with the Authority.” Having accepted the above conditions, while applied for allotment, the respondents are not entitled to the payment of interest for the period during which the deposit was lying with the Authority. It is true that there was an interlude of around one year between the date of calling applications and the date of draw of lots. It is obvious that the draw of lots was delayed due to administrative exigencies and not on account of any mala fide action of any individual; nor is there any absolute indifference on the part of the appellant in not drawing the lots. However, it is made clear that the appellant being a statutory authority is expected to perform its duties as expeditiously as possible and have the actions taken quickly.
3. Under these circumstances, the appeals are allowed. The order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated June 14, 1996 made in Revision Petition No.992/95 etc. and that of the State Forum are clearly illegal. They are accordingly set aside. No costs.
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also parties-in-person.
2. Notification was issued calling for the applications for allotment of houses and the respondents had applied on April 20, 1993. The last date for making applications was May 31, 1993. After necessary steps were taken and scrutiny was made, lots were drawn on June 7, 1994. Since the respondents remained unsuccessful in the lots, the earnest money deposited by them refunded on July 20, 1994 within one month. The question, therefore, is: whether the unsuccessful applicants would be entitled to payment of interest for the period from the date of deposit till the date of refund? One of the conditions imposed in the notification inviting applications for allotment was that “No interest shall be payable on the money of the applicant for the period for which the same is lying with the Authority.” Having accepted the above conditions, while applied for allotment, the respondents are not entitled to the payment of interest for the period during which the deposit was lying with the Authority. It is true that there was an interlude of around one year between the date of calling applications and the date of draw of lots. It is obvious that the draw of lots was delayed due to administrative exigencies and not on account of any mala fide action of any individual; nor is there any absolute indifference on the part of the appellant in not drawing the lots. However, it is made clear that the appellant being a statutory authority is expected to perform its duties as expeditiously as possible and have the actions taken quickly.
3. Under these circumstances, the appeals are allowed. The order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated June 14, 1996 made in Revision Petition No.992/95 etc. and that of the State Forum are clearly illegal. They are accordingly set aside. No costs.
