2008 (4) TMI 705 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the appellant has not deposited the 15% of the amount of tentative price of the plot within 60 days from the issuance of letter of intent? Whether in terms of clause (9) of the letter of intent, failure on his part would entail forfeiture of the earnest money?

Issues Involved:
1. Forfeiture of earnest money.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
3. Applicability of Section 45 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Authority Act, 1995.
4. Discretionary powers of the Revisional Authority.
5. Consistency in administrative decisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Forfeiture of Earnest Money:
The appellant applied for a residential plot and was successful in the draw of lots. However, he did not deposit the required 15% of the plot price within the stipulated 60 days, nor within the extended period. Consequently, the Estate Officer canceled the letter of intent and forfeited the earnest money. The appellant's revision application was dismissed, and his writ petition to the High Court was also rejected. The Supreme Court noted that forfeiture of earnest money had not been adhered to in many other cases, indicating inconsistency in administrative actions.

2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the forfeiture of earnest money resulted in civil consequences, necessitating adherence to the principles of natural justice. He cited instances where similar delays were condoned, and permissions were granted to mortgage properties. The Supreme Court observed that no show cause notice was issued to the appellant before forfeiting the earnest money, and the Revisional Authority had previously granted extensions in similar cases.

3. Applicability of Section 45 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Authority Act, 1995:
The appellant contended that the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 45, which require compliance with principles of natural justice, should apply to his case. However, the respondent argued that the appellant was not a "transferee" as defined under Section 2(m) of the Act, and thus, these provisions were not applicable. The Supreme Court acknowledged that these sub-sections might not strictly apply but emphasized the need for fair treatment.

4. Discretionary Powers of the Revisional Authority:
The appellant highlighted that the Revisional Authority had granted relief to others in similar situations. The Supreme Court noted that the Revisional Authority had, in other cases, allowed extensions and accepted payments with interest and penalties. The Court referenced previous judgments, such as Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh & Ors., where the power of forfeiture was deemed a last resort, and actions were judged on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. Consistency in Administrative Decisions:
The appellant argued that the respondent had inconsistently applied rules, granting extensions to some while denying them to him. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to consider this aspect and emphasized the importance of consistency in administrative decisions. The Court also noted that subsequent events and new evidence could be considered in review applications to ensure justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and remitted the matter to the Revisional Authority for fresh consideration, taking into account the various orders passed by the Authority and the High Courts. The Court emphasized the need for consistency and fairness in administrative actions and directed that the appellant's case be reconsidered in light of similar cases. The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.

← Previous Next →