JUDGMENT 1. As this writ petition and SB Civil Writ petition No. 5207/95 Jaipur Development Authority vs. M/s. Chandresh Minerals and Stones Pvt. Ltd. and another" ("The other writ petition"), arise out of the order dated 8th June, 1995, passed in Appeal No. 11/94, by the Tribunal, constituted under Section 83 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 ("The Tribunal"), both these writ petitions are being disposed of together by this order. The facts giving rise to these two writ petitions, are as under:- On 21st June, 1993, the Jaipur Development Authority ("the JDA"), conducted auction for sale of a plot of land, measuring about 1450 sq. mtrs, situated, at Gopalpura-Bypass in Jaipur. The bid closed at the highest one of the petitioner at Rs. 30,75,450/- and soon thereafter, the petitioner executed the document, containing the terms of sale of the plot and also deposited a sum of Rs. 1,54,000/-, representing 5 per cent of the bid money.The petitioner deposited a further sum of Rs. 3,07,318/-, representing 10 per cent of the bid money, on the next day, i.e., on 22nd June, 1993, and in this way, a sum of Rs. 4,61,318/-, representing 15 per cent of the bid-money, was deposited by the petitioner, according to the terms and conditions of the auction. On 15th July, 1993, the JDA issued a demand-notice, directing the petitioner, to deposit Rs. 26,89,195/-, payable towards the balance sale-price and some other charges, within thirty days of the date of the issue of the said notice, failing which the amount, already deposited, was liable to be forfeited and the bid was liable to be cancelled (Annex. 3). Vide the letter dated 3rd August, 1993 (Annex. 3-A), the petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the letter dated 15th July, 1993 (Annex. 3) and stated that a sum of Rs. 3,38,682/- was being deposited by way of a pay-order as mentioned therein and that in this way, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- would stand deposited. 3). Vide the letter dated 3rd August, 1993 (Annex. 3-A), the petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the letter dated 15th July, 1993 (Annex. 3) and stated that a sum of Rs. 3,38,682/- was being deposited by way of a pay-order as mentioned therein and that in this way, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- would stand deposited. It also pointed out that a high-tension line was going through the plot in question and the petitioner had been assured that the same would be removed and further that it was required to be removed as the construction of the multistoreyed commercial complex was not possible, without removing it and further that on the southern side of the plot, a gate of another building was opening, and it was decided either to close the said gate or to leave a passage of 10 feet width on the said side of the plot and in the latter case, the remaining plot was to be re-measured and the remaining payable amount was to be re-computed. It also stated that the Police Department had been keeping their articles on the plot and that actual demarcation should be made by construction of a 4 feet high boundary-wall around the plots, at the cost of the petitioner and stated that the balance amount would be paid after the above-said things were done. Vide letter dated 3rd September, 1993 (Annex. 4), the petitioner made reference to the letters (Annexs. 3 and 3-A respectively) and asked for removal of the high-tension line, closing of the gate or leaving the 10 feet wide passage and for removal of the articles of the Police Department and stated that the reply was awaited for depositing of the remaining amount. Vide letter dated 12th October, 1993 (Annex. 3 and 3-A respectively) and asked for removal of the high-tension line, closing of the gate or leaving the 10 feet wide passage and for removal of the articles of the Police Department and stated that the reply was awaited for depositing of the remaining amount. Vide letter dated 12th October, 1993 (Annex. 5), the JDA wrote to the petitioner that the amount for removing the high-tension line had already been deposited with the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) and that there was no encroachment on the plot in dispute and further that the existence of the gate on the southern side of the plot, did not affect the petitioner and that a letter dated 23rd August, 1993, was written by the JDA, to the petitioner, but the same had been returned undelivered, and directed the petitioner to deposit the balance amount, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the said letter, failing which, the bid was to be cancelled and the amount, already deposited, was to be forfeited. Vide letter dated 12th November, 1993 (Annex. 6), the petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the letter dated 12th October, 1993 (Annex. 5), on 9th November, 1993 and contested the position that there was no encroachment on the plot in dispute, but asserted that even fencing had been erected by the Police Department on the plot in dispute, besides a hut thereon and further that it appeared that the JDA was not proposing to close the gate of the adjoining plot and asked the JDA to leave a 10 feet wide passage and to re-measure the remaining plot and to re-compute the balance amount payable and further to get the high-tension line removed. A demand-draft for Rs. 50,000/- was also enclosed, for construction of a boundary-wall around the plot, at the cost of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 25th January, 1994 (Annex. 7), the JDA made reference to the letter dated 12th November, 1993 (Annex. 6) of the petitioner and stated that if the balance-amount in terms of the letter dated 15th July, 1993 (Annex. 50,000/- was also enclosed, for construction of a boundary-wall around the plot, at the cost of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 25th January, 1994 (Annex. 7), the JDA made reference to the letter dated 12th November, 1993 (Annex. 6) of the petitioner and stated that if the balance-amount in terms of the letter dated 15th July, 1993 (Annex. 3), was not deposited within fifteen days from the date of issue of the said letter, along with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum and penalty at the rate of 10 per cent, the amount, already deposited by the petitioner, would be forfeited and the bid would be cancelled and the plot would be put to re-auction. The petitioner having felt aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, during the course of hearing, appointed a Commissioner and obtained a report and vide the impugned order dated 8th June, 1995, held that the JDA was bound to close the gate of the adjoining plot and directed it to close the same and, consequently, quashed the order dated 25th January, 1994 (Annex. 7) and directed the JDA to close the gate by 30th June, 1995 and to issue a fresh demand-notice for payment of the amount, which should be paid by the petitioner, with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. The petitioner as well as the JDA felt aggrieved by the impugned order, passed by the learned Tribunal and this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, whereas, the other one has been filed by the JDA. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 3. The petitioner as well as the JDA felt aggrieved by the impugned order, passed by the learned Tribunal and this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, whereas, the other one has been filed by the JDA. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the plot in dispute had been purchased for construction of a multistoreyed commercial complex and that admittedly, high-tension line from over the plot was to be removed, before its possession was to be delivered to the petitioner and further that the JDA was bound to close the gate of the adjoining plot, opening on the southern side of the plot in dispute, before handing over its possession to the petitioner, which was to be given immediately on depositing the balance amount of 85 per cent of the bid and further that the encroachment had been made by the Police Department and had not been removed by the JDA and, as such, the JDA was not in a position to hand over vacant possession of the plot in dispute, to the petitioner and that no amount by way of interest or penalty could thus be demanded by the JDA. 4. The contention of Shri Satyavrat Sharma, the learned counsel for the JDA, on the other hand, is that the petitioner was to be handed over possession of the vacant plot only on his depositing the entire balance amount and that it was not necessary for the JDA to have removed the high-tension line from over the plot in dispute or to have removed the encroachment, if any, before demanding the balance amount and that if the JDA had not closed the gate of the adjoining plot, the petitioner could have himself calculated the amount payable for the remaining plot, after deducting the price of the 10 feet wide passage, to be carved out on the southern side of the plot, in front of the gate and that the petitioner not having deposited the amount, the JDA was right in demanding the penalty and interest. 5. 5. The document, containing the terms and conditions of the auctions, had not been filed by the petitioner, but has been filed by the JDA, in the other writ petition, as Annexure-1, and the correctness thereof, has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the Bar. 6. The bare perusal of the said document shows that one of the conditions of the auction, was that the JDA was either to close the gate of the adjoining plot, opening on the southern side of the plot in dispute or to carve out a 10 feet wide passage from the said plot (in dispute) towards the said side facing the gate. 7. In this case, neither the JDA closed the gate in question, nor did it carve out a 10 feet wide passage from the plot in dispute and on the contrary, the letter dated 12th October, 1993 (Annex. 5), issued by the JDA, shows that the stand taken by it, was that the existence of the gate on the adjoining plot, did not affect the petitioner. It was nowhere stated that the petitioner could deposit the amount after calculating the amount payable for the plot to be measured after carving out the 10 feet wide passage. On the contrary, the entire amount was demanded by the JDA, from the petitioner. 8. This clearly shows that the JDA was not prepared to perform its own part of the contract and, in this way, the petitioner could insist for performing its part, so that the payment could he made and possession of the plot in dispute could be taken. The JDA itself having not been prepared to perform its own part of the contract by either closing the gate of the adjoining plot or by carving out the 10 feet wide passage, had no right to claim the interest and penalty from the petitioner, for non-payment of the amount. 9. The learned counsel for the JDA has further contended that the conditions, mentioned in Annexure-1, are in accordance with the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Rules, according to which, demand was to be made as per the Schedule, mentioned in Annexure-A, attached to the said rules. 10. 9. The learned counsel for the JDA has further contended that the conditions, mentioned in Annexure-1, are in accordance with the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Rules, according to which, demand was to be made as per the Schedule, mentioned in Annexure-A, attached to the said rules. 10. This position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but it has rightly been contended that before the demand could be made by the JDA, it must be prepared to perform its own part of the contract and that the rules cannot be read to mean that the JDA can enforce the other side to perform its part of the contract, without itself being prepared to perform its own part thereof. 11. No other point has been raised before me. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, I allow this writ petition, dismiss the other writ petition and quash the order dated 8th June, 1995 (Annex. 1) passed by the learned Tribunal as far as it directs the petitioner to deposit the amount with interest, on fresh demand-notice being issued by the JDA. 13. At this stage, it had been submitted by the learned counsel for the JDA that the gate in question of the adjoining plot has already been closed by the JDA, and the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that although the JDA did not issue any fresh demand-notice even after passing of the impugned order by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner had, of its own, deposited a sum of Rs. 23,00,531/- on 19th July, 1995, covering the entire balance amount, payable by the petitioner, to the JDA. The fact of the above-said amount having been deposited by the petitioner, has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the JDA, who is not in a position to say whether the said amount covered the entire balance payment due towards the price of the plot and other expenses. 14. The fact of the above-said amount having been deposited by the petitioner, has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the JDA, who is not in a position to say whether the said amount covered the entire balance payment due towards the price of the plot and other expenses. 14. Consequently, it is directed that if the amount, already deposited by the petitioner towards the cost and other charges in respect of the plot in dispute, covers the entire price and other charges, without penalty and/or interest, the JDA should hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the plot in dispute, to the petitioner, within a period of one month from today, but in case, any amount still remains unpaid, the demand-notice in respect thereof should be issued by the JDA, without any delay and the possession of the plot in dispute should be handed over to the petitioner, by the JDA, within one month of the petitioners depositing such additional amount. 15. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.Petition disposed of. *******