Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT. NALINI AGGARWAL ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/04/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWMAY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the
appellant and also parties-in-person.
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 of 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 condition imposed in the notification inviting
applications for allotment was "No interest shall be 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 of perform its duties as
expeditiously as possible and have the actions taken
quickly.
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.