IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14422 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 18.08.2008 Chand Ram .... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the letter dated 18.10.2000, issued by the Managing Director, HUDA Urban Estate Town and Country Planning Employees Welfare Organisation (hereinafter referred to as `HEWO') and the order dated 20.6.2008, passed by the Chairman, HEWO. The petitioner is an Ex-employee of the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The employees of the HUDA as well as the Urban Estate Town and Country Planning framed HEWO, which was duly registered under the provisions of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. The said Organisation i.e. HEWO framed a scheme for allotment of utility flats at Gurgaon. The petitioner was enrolled as member in HEWO CWP No. 14422 of 2008 -2- against membership No. 1910. The tentative construction cost of the flat was fixed at Rs. 3,82,080/-, which was to be paid by the members in instalments. As per the rules, in case of default in payment of two consecutive instalments, HEWO has right to cancel the allotment and refund the principal amount, after deducting 10% of the deposited amount, without any interest. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not deposit 4th to 11th instalments, amounting to Rs. 3,35,000/-, for which he was served several show cause notices from 1997 to 1999. When the petitioner did not deposit the outstanding dues, his membership was cancelled vide letter dated 2.4.1999. However, subsequently, on his request, the Governing Body of HEWO in its meeting held on 26.8.1999 gave him one more opportunity to deposit the outstanding dues after charging interest at the rate of 18%. In view of the said decision, vide letters dated 21.9.1999, 7.2.2000 and 29.3.2000, the petitioner was again asked to deposit the outstanding dues with interest, but neither any response was received from him nor he deposited any amount against the outstanding dues. Thereafter, his membership was cancelled vide letter dated 28.7.2000 and the amount already deposited by him was refunded vide cheque No. 722723 dated 10.7.2000. Again the Governing Body of HEWO in its meeting dated 27.9.2000 decided to restore the cancellation of flats of defaulters on deposit of outstanding dues along with penal interest @ 18% and additional penal interest @ 5% with effect from 1.5.2000 in one month time. In terms CWP No. 14422 of 2008 -3- of the said decision, an opportunity was again afforded to the petitioner to return the cheque dated 10.7.2000 and deposit an amount of Rs. 6,52,855/- within one month, but the petitioner did not respond to the said offer and he did not make any payment. Instead of depositing the outstanding amount, he filed an appeal for restoration of his membership by charging Rs. 1,75,000/- as cost of flat after adjusting the amount deposited by him. The said appeal was dismissed and the decision was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 8.3.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner again made an appeal on 19.9.2003 before the Chairman for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and for restoration of his membership by accepting an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. The said appeal has also been dismissed by the Chairman vide order dated 20.6.2008, while observing as under :- “9. After going through the entire case it was noted that the construction of flats has been completed during 1999-2000 and the total construction cost of Utility flat of HEWO Scheme-I at Gurgaon worked out to Rs. 5,33,207/-. Now after charging delay interest upto 31.12.07, it will be Rs. 16,71,082/-. It clearly shows that Sh. Chand Ram not deposited the outstanding dues after 3rd instalment i.e. after 28.4.1993; despite the fact that he had been given ample opportunities in this regard. From his appeal also it is made out that he is not interested in depositing the actual outstanding dues but trying to get the flat restored at cost of Rs. 1,75,000/- which was fixed CWP No. 14422 of 2008 -4- tentatively. Thus the appeal made by him is not correct/justified and has no merit. However to give him proper opportunity, he was called for personal hearing. He attended office on 28.4.2008 and was heard in person. During hearing he requested for restoration of flat by giving the plea that he is a poor person and no more in the employment of HUDA. 10. Whereas after consideration of the record of this case, it is observed that he badly defaulted in making payments of instalments, despite of ample opportunity, given to him. During personal hearing it transpired that Sh. Chand Ram was dismissed from the services of HUDA by the Chief Administrator vide his order dated 31.1.2000 because of his involvement in a case pertaining to Prevention of Corruption Act. Even his appeal is time barred and in his application for condonation of delay, the space for period of delay has been left blank. However, he could not justify the default in making the payments in time. Therefore, his appeal for restoration of cancelled membership No. 1910 of Utility flat in HEWO Scheme-I at Gurgaon has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.” We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the CWP No. 14422 of 2008 -5- aforesaid factual position. He submits that the petitioner is now ready to pay an amount of 6,52,855/- with interest and he should be given one more opportunity and the letter of cancellation of his membership be set aside. In our opinion, the petitioner was given enough opportunities to make the payment as per the Scheme, but he consciously and deliberately defaulted in making the payment. Now, at this belated stage, there is no justification to accept the offer made by the petitioner. Thus, in view of above, we do not find any ground to set aside the letter dated 18.10.2000 and the impugned order dated 20.6.2008, in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE August 18, 2008 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ndj JUDGE