- (1.) THE present appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 11th December, 2007. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants (original respondents in the writ petition) had advertised to sell a vacant plot in January, 1973. The respondent (original petitioner in the writ petition) entered his bid which was found to be the highest. The property was a 200 sq. yds. plot. The respondent's bid was accepted and he paid the earnest money. The appellants without assigning any reason informed the respondent that the earnest money was to be refunded to him. However, the money was never returned. The respondent represented to the authorities against the said action. The appellants in their counter affidavit have not disputed that respondent was the highest bidder. However, they contended that the respondent had no vested right to claim the allotment since his bid was accepted provisionally. They also denied that the reasons had to be assigned for cancelling the bid.
(2.) THE learned single Judge has rightly held that the appellants' conduct was indifferent and they were not willing to redress the genuine grievance of a citizen who fell victim to its maze of decision making. There was no justification or explanation for the inaction of the appellants and the learned single Judge rightly held their action to be arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. After balancing equities, the learned single Judge has correctly directed refund of amount of earnest money with compound interest as also payment of damages to the respondent. It is also pertinent to mention here that the present appeal suffers from delay of 474 days. No plausible explanation is forthcoming in the condonation of delay application to justify and explain such a long delay in filing of the present appeal. Clearly, the appellants have slept over the matter for a long number of years. There is no satisfactory explanation in the condonation for delay application. The present appeal can be rejected on this count alone. This is a case where a citizen was made to wait for years for an alternative allotment and made to run from pillar to post for no fault of his. The degree of fairness expected from an instrumentality of the State is higher than that expected from a private individual. There must be fair play in action. Every act of the State has to be informed by reason and must show application of mind. In the present case, there is no justification or plausible explanation for the arbitrary and unreasonable actions of the appellant. The present appeal could be dismissed simply on the ground of delay and latches. The appellants have been clearly negligent in pursuing their legal remedies. However, even on merits, as discussed by us hereinabove, we are in agreement with the findings of the learned single Judge. The appeal must fail. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. All the pending applications stand disposed of as well.;