Supreme Court of India
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SMT. NALINI AGGARWAL ETC. ETC.
- Decided
- 21 April 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
- Disposal
- Leave Granted & Allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] 3 S.C.R. 888 · 1997 INSC 419
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also parties-in-person.
p. 888, margin F
Notification was issued calling for the applications for allotment of houses and the respondents had applied on April 20, 1993. The last date for making applications was May 31, 1993. After necessary steps were taken and scrutiny was made, lots were drawn on June 7, 1994. Since the respondents remained un-successful in the lots, the earnest money deposited by them refunded on July 20, 1994 within one month. The question, therefore, is : whether the unsuccessful applicants would be entitled to payment of interest for the period from the date of deposit till the date of refund? One of the conditions imposed in the notification inviting applications for allotment was that "No interest shall be payable on the money of the applicant for the period for which the same is lying with the Authority." Having accepted the above conditions, while applied for allotment, the respondents are not entitled to the payment of interest for the period during which the deposit was lying with the Authority. It is true that there was an interlude of around one year between the date of calling applications and the date of draw of lots. It is obvious that the draw of lots was delayed due to administrative exigencies and not on account of any ma!a fide action of any individual; nor is there any absolute indifference on the part of the appellant in not drawing the lots. However, it is made clear that the appellant being a statutory authority is expected to perform its duties as expeditiously as possible and have the actions taken quickly.
pp. 888–889, margin F
Under these circumstances, the appeals are allowed. The order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated June 14, 1996 made in Revision Petition No. 992/95 etc. and that the State Forum are clearly illegal. They are accordingly set aside. No costs. G.N. Appeals allowed.
p. 889, margin C