Shop allotment cancellation fails where required bid payment was received by the authority despite payment being made on behalf of the allottee

Cancellation of the shop allotment was unsustainable because the required 50% bid payment had in fact been made on behalf of the allottee and received by the authority. The record showed deposits credited to the petitioner's account on several dates, and the authority did not dispute receipt of those amounts. On that factual basis, the Court held that the payment obligation stood satisfied and there was no lawful ground to cancel the allotment. The cancellation order and the revisional order were set aside, and allotment of Shop No. 113-Sa was directed to be made in favour of the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation of the shop allotment for alleged failure to deposit 50% of the bid amount was sustainable when the remaining amount had been deposited on behalf of the petitioner and received by the authority.

Analysis: The controversy turned on whether the required 50% payment in respect of Shop No. 113-Sa had in fact been made. The record showed deposits made on behalf of the petitioner by respondent no. 4 on 15.09.2023, 09.10.2023 and 15.03.2024. The authority did not dispute receipt of those amounts. In these circumstances, the Court treated the payment obligation as having been satisfied and found no basis to sustain the cancellation order.

Conclusion: The cancellation order and the revisional order were set aside, and the respondent was directed to allot Shop No. 113-Sa in favour of the petitioner within one week.

---