Smt. Sarla Taneja vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 November, 2025
56. However, before parting, the decisions relied upon by the DDA may
also be adverted to. The reliance placed by the DDA on the decisions in
Jitin Garg (supra) and Ashutosh Kumar (supra) is misplaced. In the said
cases, the bidders were squarely covered under the circular dated 02.12.2020
and hence, were required to deposit the remaining amount i.e. 75% of the
remaining bid amount latest by 31.12.2020, which they failed to do.
Therefore, the request of the bidders to extend time to deposit the remaining
amount of 75% of the bid value was rejected by the DDA, and the orders of
DDA were affirmed by this Court. However, in the present case, as noted
above, the petitioner was not covered by the said circular, rather DDA had
undertaken to grant 90 days to the petitioner in the event Mr. Manjeet
W.P.(C) 8242/2021 Page 16 of 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:22.11.2025
21:22:42
Singh‟s writ petition is dismissed. This Court has already held that such
undertaking ought to have been complied with by the respondent/DDA by
issuance of fresh demand-cum-allotment letter, especially since the validity
of earlier demand-cum-allotment letter had expired when restraint order
passed in Manjeet Singh‟s writ petition was in operation. Therefore, it is the
DDA which has failed to discharge its obligation.