Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Smt. Nalini Aggarwal Etc. Etc

Supreme Court21 April 1997D.P. Wadhwa

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an applicant applies for allotment of a house in response to a notification that expressly stipulates "No interest shall be on the money of the applicant for the period for which the same is lying with the Authority," the applicant, by submitting an application on those terms, accepts that condition and is not entitled to claim interest on earnest money deposited during the period between application and refund, notwithstanding any delay in the draw of lots. A statutory authority, while not liable for interest on deposits where the notification excludes it, is nonetheless expected to perform its duties expeditiously and conduct lottery draws quickly rather than allowing administrative delay to extend the period for which applicant funds remain with it.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

PETITIONER:HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:SMT. NALINI AGGARWAL ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/04/1997
BENCH:K. RAMASWMAY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:

O R D E R Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also parties-in-person.

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 of June 7, 1994. Since the respondents remained unsuccessful 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 condition imposed in the notification inviting applications for allotment was "No interest shall be 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 mala 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 of perform its duties as expeditiously as possible and have the actions taken quickly.

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 of the State Forum are clearly illegal. They are accordingly set aside. No costs.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free