http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

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.