Delay in infrastructure project work can't be condoned: HC

Any delay in the construction of infrastructure project cannot be condoned as it causes prejudice to the public at large, Delhi High Court has said.
The court observed this while dismissing a petition filed by a firm, which was a successful bidder in January 2007 for a commercial plot in Dwarka here, seeking quashing of a January 9, 2008 letter issued by DDA directing it to pay balance 75 per cent premium along with interest at 15 per cent per annum.
The company, Sunlight Projects Pvt Ltd, had also sought a direction to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to provide sewage, road, parking and water supply facilities at the plot in Dwarka sector 20 in Southwest Delhi.

"Delay in construction of an infrastructure project like a commercial plot cannot be condoned as a commercial plot is of public utility and any delay in its construction causes prejudice to the public at large," Justice Manmohan said.
"If the petitioner after construction of the building had found that the infrastructural facilities had not been provided, then its grievance would have been well founded, as without basic civic amenities, no purchaser can occupy and/or use the said plot," the court said.
According to petitioner, an auction was held in January 2007 for the plot and the firm was the successful bidder with a bid of Rs 17.51 crore.

It said that on the date of auction, the firm made earnest money deposit of Rs 4.45 crore or 25 per cent of bid amount and in May 2007, the DDA issued a demand letter for balance 75 per cent bid amount within 90 days.

The petitioner requested for extension of time to make payment and the firm was granted periodic extension of time till January 28, 2008 to make the balance payment.
The counsel appearing for the firm told the high court that after auctioning the plot, DDA failed to provide basic amenities at the site despite representations by the company since February 2008 and therefore, they had to keep on asking for extension of time to make payment of the balance amount.

DDA countered the submissions saying the plot had been sold on "as is where is basis" and the petitioner was bound by the terms and conditions of contract/auction, in particular a clause which provides for forfeiture of earnest money deposit.
The court, after going through the records placed before it, said it was apparent that the real reason for not making payment of balance 75 per cent bid amount was the fact that the petitioner did not have adequate funds.