Alok Sharma, J.The matter comes up on an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of stay order dated 15.01.2013, passed by this Court wherein while issuing notices of the writ petition as also the stay application, this Court had directed that "in the meantime, auction if has taken place shall not be confirmed save with the permission of this Court."

Even though the matter comes up on the aforesaid application, but with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent - Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter "JDA") issued a public notice for auction of residential plot Nos.337 (corner) and 357 (corner), Patrakar Colony (Dholai), Jaipur on 16.04.2012. The petitioner participated in the said auction proceeding after having deposited the requisite security amount of Rs. 50,000/- only. In the auction proceedings on 16.04.2012, the petitioner was declared to be the highest bidder for aforesaid plots. It appears that on being declared the highest bidder, the petitioner immediately deposited 5% of the bid price after adjusting the earnest money amount of Rs. 50,000/- in accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction. Thereafter as required another 10% of the bid amount was deposited within 24 hours. The bid was subsequently confirmed and the petitioner was issued a demand notice for the remainder amounts for plot No.357(c) vide letter No.D-529 dated 20.04.2012 and vide letter No.D-541 dated 23.04.2012 in respect of plot No.337(c) within 30 days. It appears that on account of financial constraints and unavoidable circumstances claimed but not detailed in the writ petition, the petitioner could not deposit the remainder amount of the bid made and as demanded by the JDA for the price of the plots. From time to time the petitioner requested for grant of more time for the deposit of the required amount being the balance consideration of the two plots for which bids were made by him in the auction dated 16.04.2012. Finally, owing to nondeposit of amounts as demanded by the JDA within the time of 30 days and even months thereafter in spite of repeated notices including notice by registered post, the highest bid of the petitioner with regard to the plots in issue was cancelled by the JDA on or about 19.12.2012. Subsequently, the JDA notified the re-auction of plot No.357 (c) and 337(c), Patrakar Colony (Dholai), Jaipur on 03.01.2013. the auction was to be held on 15.01.2013. The petitioners representation for cancellation of the aforesaid auction and request for extension of time to make the deposits being the highest bidder in the auction of 16.04.2012 was rejected by the JDA. Hence this writ petition.

3. Reply to the petition has been filed. It has been submitted by Mr. Dinesh Yadav, AAG, appearing for the JDA, that the petitioner was the highest bidder for the plots Nos.337(c) and 357(c) of Patrakar Colony (Dholai), Jaipur having made an offer of Rs. 26,300/- per sq. mtr. for the aforesaid plots. It was submitted that the petitioner was informed about the terms and conditions of the auction and he signed thereon indicative of his due agreement thereto. It is submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the auction, the prospective bidder were to deposit the security amount of Rs. 50,000/- per plot before initiation of auction proceeding and the successful bidder required to deposit 5% of the auction price at the spot, after adjusting the security amount and a further 10% of the bid amount within 24 hours thereafter. The remaining amount was to be deposited within 30 days. It is submitted that for plot No.337(c) aforesaid, the JDA issued a demand notice for a sum of Rs. 49,95,212/- on 23.04.2012. The said amount was to be deposited within 30 days. The petitioner however did not appear to have deposited the said amount as per the demand notices and the terms and conditions of the auction. By a registered letter dated 26.09.2012, the petitioner was asked to furnish proof of depositing of the remainder amount for the plot in question and the petitioner was informed that if the amount had not been deposited within the prescribed period as per the terms and conditions of the auction, the highest bid of the petitioner would stand automatically cancelled. It was submitted that the petitioner did not respond to the letter dated 26.09.2012. The respondent-JDA served a final registered notice on 29.11.2012 but to no avail. Finally the respondent-JDA was left with no option but to cancel the auction of plot No.337(c) as the petitioner did not deposit the amount in pursuance to the demand note dated 23.04.2012. Vide order dated 19.12.2012, the petitioners highest bid of plot No. 337(c) was thus cancelled by the JDA. In respect of plot No.357(c), the petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 64,21,002/- under demand letter dated 20.04.2012. The said amount was not deposited. The remainder sent by a registered letter dated 26.09.2012 was also of no avail. Final notice by the registered post was sent on 29.11.2012 which again did not elicit any response from the petitioner. Consequently, vide order dated 19.12.2012, the auction of plot No.357(c) in which the petitioner was the highest bidder was also cancelled. It has been submitted that subsequently plot No.337(c) admeasuring 199.71 sq. mtr situate in Patrakar Colony was auctioned on 15.01.2013 where one Shri Kapil Gupta made the highest bid of Rs. 27,450/- per sq. mtr. and has since deposited 100% of the bid amount as per the terms and conditions of the auction. Similarly plot No.357(c) admeasuring 257.07 sq. mtr. also situate in Patrakar Colony was auctioned on 15.01.2013 and Shri Mukesh Kumar Singhal and Smt. Omwati Devi were the highest bidder with Rs. 26,850/- per sq. mtr. who have also deposited 100% of the bid amount.

4. In the aforesaid facts, it has been prayed that the petitioner himself being in default on his obligations as agreed to under terms and conditions of the auction dated 16.04.2012, he has no case to agitate before this Court. Contravention of any statutory, legal and/ or fundamental right of the petitioner cannot be made out when he has himself been in breach. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Aggarwal Associates (Promoters) Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr., (2010) 15 SCC 380 wherein the Honble Apex Court has, in similar circumstances, held that the highest bidder having failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the auction notice there was no concluded contract between the parties and the highest bidder would not be entitled to claim possession or allotment of plot in his favour contrary to the terms and conditions of the auction. It was further held that neither equity could be invoked, nor vague notices of fairness de hors the facts of a given case be invoked in matters determinable under the terms and conditions of an auction agreed between the parties and / or contract entered into. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, counsel for the respondent-JDA, has submitted that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-JDA, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has himself been in breach of his obligations under the terms and conditions of the auction dated 16.04.2012 in not making the payment of the remainder amounts (85%) in respect of the two plots in issue within the period provided for in spite of repeated notices. It is not in dispute, from the facts on record, that the JDA gave ample opportunity to the petitioner to make the requisite payments of the remainder amounts, but to no avail. The JDA cancelled the highest bids of the petitioner only after having waited for the petitioner to make the remainder payments for over ten months. Thereupon fresh auction was held wherein the plots in question have been sold out by way of auction to the highest bidders offering a higher price than offered by the petitioner and the entire bid amount has been received by the JDA. The petitioner thus has no case to agitate in law, in contract or in equity before this Court.

6. Consequently, I find no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. The stay order dated 15.01.2013 passed by this Court stands vacated.