The Estate Officer, HUDA and Others vs Mahesh Kumar

Adrash Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of learned Single Judge quashing cancellation of booth site

allotted to the respondent, on the ground of delay of 35 days in making the deposit. Though, appellant has delayed filing of appeal by 189 days for

which, condonation is sought, grievance is to condonation of delay of five days in favour of the respondent, without disputing genuineness of the

ground put forward by the respondent.

The site in question was allotted to the respondent in an open auction. As per terms and conditions of allotment, 10% of the total amount was

deposited at the spot and the remaining 15% which was to be deposited within 30 days. The respondent sought condonation on the ground of

illness, pleading his confinement to bed. The said prayer was not accepted on the ground that delay beyond 30 days could not be condoned.

Learned Single Judge held that though as per policy of the appellant, there was power of condoning the delay, on payment of extra charges up

to 30 days, in a fit case, longer delay could be condoned by the next higher authority on payment of surcharge alongwith penal interest. Reference

was also made to policy dated 27.07.2005 envisaging condonation of delay up to 60 days, subject to certain payments. Accordingly, the

cancellation was set aside and the plot was directed to be restored, subject to payment of surcharge and penal interest.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

It is submitted that the case of the respondent is not covered under the policy and once there was a delay beyond 30 days, cancellation of

allotment must follow. The appellant/HUDA is helpless and has no power to condone the said delay. Policy dated 27.07.2005 was not applicable

to a commercial plot.

We are unable to accept the submission that the authority could not condone even short delay of five days which may have taken place for

reasons beyond the control of an allottee. Such delay could always be condoned at some level in the hierarchy, subject to additional charges being

given, in genuine cases.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single

Judge.

In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the High Court Legal Aid Committee.