Public notice issued under judicial directions binds allottees; failure to meet payment deadlines results in automatic cancellation of allotment.

The Appellant applied for an industrial plot under a Relocation Scheme in 1996 and was allotted a flatted factory unit in 1999

Following directions from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, Respondent No. 2 issued a Public Notice on 26.01.2001 requiring all allottees to complete payments by 31.03.2001, failing which allotments would be cancelled

The Appellant failed to make the full payment by the stipulated deadline

Consequently, the allotment was cancelled via a letter dated 11.10.2006

The Appellant contended she never received the cancellation letter, requested a floor change due to heavy machinery, and eventually deposited funds with her lending bank in 2008

The Appellant challenged the cancellation through W.P.(C) 7780/2013, which was dismissed by a Single Judge

1. Whether the failure to comply with a payment deadline set by a court-mandated Public Notice results in the valid cancellation of an allotment, notwithstanding the alleged non-service of an individual cancellation letter

2. Whether subsequent payments made to a bank or the continued reflection of "eligible" status on a government website can revive an allotment already cancelled by operation of a Public Notice

3. Whether the principles regarding delay and laches established in Dharnidhar Mishra v. State of Bihar are applicable to revive a cause of action where substantive compliance was missing

Public Notices issued pursuant to judicial mandates constitute sufficient notice to all allottees regarding payment deadlines and consequences of default

Supreme Court’s directions in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, W.P.(Civil) No. 4677/1985

Doctrine of "continuing cause of action" and "delay and laches" as discussed in Dharnidhar Mishra v. State of Bihar (2024) 10 SCC 605, which holds that constitutional courts may overlook delay to ensure substantial justice in cases of recurring causes of action

The Court held that the Public Notice issued on 26.01.2001 was a direct consequence of the Supreme Court's orders and was binding on all allottees

Since the Appellant admittedly failed to complete payment by the 31.03.2001 deadline, the cancellation became effective by operation of the terms of the notice

The Court reasoned that once a public notice is issued under judicial directions, individual service of a cancellation letter is not a prerequisite for the cancellation to be valid

Furthermore, the Appellant's deposit of funds with her bank in 2008—seven years after the deadline—could not revive a dead allotment

The Court rejected the argument regarding the website status in 2013, noting that administrative errors in digital records do not override the legal consequences of payment default

Regarding Dharnidhar Mishra, the Court distinguished it by noting that the Single Judge dismissed the writ on substantive merits (non-payment), not merely on technical grounds of delay

The Court granted partial relief by directing Respondent No. 2 to refund the Appellant’s earnest money (₹27,042/-) along with 6% simple interest per annum calculated from 31.03.2001 until the date of payment

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs