JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a builder. On April 21, 1999, it had offered to buy land at the rate of Rs. 2.85 crores per gross acre from the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. The petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 40.19 lacs at the spot. Thereafter it made a deposit of an amount of Rs. 60,28,000/- on May 19, 1999. No letter of allotment was given to the petitioner on the deposit of 25% of the price of the land. On May 3, 1999, the petitioner had also requested the second respondent to issue Form No. 37-I, so as to comply with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's request was declined vide letter dated May 14, 1999. It was informed that till the Government approves the proposal, the certificate in Form No. 37-I could not be issued. Thus, the Corporation had not accepted the petitioner's offer. On August 9, 1999, the petitioner wrote to the respondents to find out the latest position. A copy of the letter dated August 9, 1999 has been produced as Annexure P8 with the writ petition. The petitioner requested the respondent/Corporation to let it "know immediately the position regarding the acceptance of our bid". It pointed out that "such large amounts cannot be kept blocked endlessly in suspense". The petitioner alleges that it received no response. Thereafter, on September 18, 1999, the petitioner felt constrained to withdraw its offer. A copy of the letter dated September 18, 1999, has been produced as Annexure P9 with the writ petition. The petitioner pointed out that despite deposit of an amount of Rs. 1,00,47,000/- and the letters dated May 19, 1999 and August 9, 1999, the offer had not been accepted. It was further pointed out that vide letter dated May 14, 1999, the Corporation had informed the petitioner that the bid had not been approved so far by the Government. Even thereafter, no acceptance had been communicated. Therefore, the petitioner had withdrawn the offer "given in the public auction held on April 21, 1999, with immediate effect ______". This letter was received in the office of respondent No. 2 on September 20, 1999. Then a notice dated September 27, 1999, was served on the second respondent.
(2.) IT appears that the withdrawal of the offer and the notice moved the respondents. On October 1, 1999, the letter of allotment was issued to the petitioner. It was informed that the State Government had approved the auction proceedings vide memorandum dated September 21, 1999. The petitioner wrote back vide letter dated October 12, 1999 that the offer having been withdrawn the respondents could not have accepted it. The petitioner requested for refund to its money. The Corporation persisted that the petitioner should deposit the instalment. On March 14, 2000, the respondent/Corporation also wrote to the State Government that the allottee was pressing for vacant possession of the plots. In fact, according to the petitioner, the Corporation was not in a position to hand over the possession of the land as the Forest Department has refused to grant permission for its sale. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner's money was not refunded. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this court through the present writ petition. It prays that an appropriate writ be issued to quash the decision of the Government for grant of approval of the auction held on April 21, 1999 in respect of plot No. 1, measuring 1.41 acres of land. It further prays that the respondents be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,00,47,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The respondents were served with the notice of the petitioner in the early part of November, 2000. They had put in appearance on November 24, 2000. The case was adjourned to enable them to file their respective replies and was posted for hearing on January 12, 2001. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for today. Despite opportunity and the lapse of more than six months, the reply has not been filed. Thus, we have no alternative but to proceed to decide the case on the basis of the averments in the writ petition. Counsel for the parties have been heard. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been contended that the offer having been withdrawn, there was nothing for the respondents to accept. They are bound to refund the money.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the State Government having approved the auction held on April 21, 1999, the petitioner is not entitled to the refund of any amount.;