IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13540 of 2008. Date of Decision: 16th February, 2009. Gurbax Singh ....Petitioner through Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner has come up for quashing of the letters- cum-orders dated 23.9.2003, 5.3.2004 and 25.6.2004 [Annexures P13 to P-15] whereby on account of his failure to deposit the installments towards the allotment price of MIG Flat allotted to him, the respondents are asking him to pay multiplied Interest. The petitioner's grievance is that the respondents could have asked for interest at the simple rate of more than 10% as per the decision of this Court in CWP No. 20468 of 2002 [Yashpal Bansal v State of Punjab & Ors. Decided on 17.5.2004 [Annexure P-16]. The petitioner has also placed on record the order dated 2.1.2006 [Annexure P-17] whereby Special Leave Petition preferred by the PUDA against the aforementioned Division Bench judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the PUDA authorities have filed their counter-affidavit. It is urged on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner being a chronic defaulter in payment of due installments, the interest at multiplied rates has been charged from him. Having heard learned counsel for the parties for some time and on perusal of the material on record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner's claim has been squarely answered in his favour by a Division Bench of this Court in Yash Pal Bansal's case [supra]. The petitioner in that case also was allotted MIG Flat by the respondents and on account of repeated defaults committed by him in payment of the installments that he was burdened with Interest up to 24%. Relying upon the Apex Court judgment in Roochira Ceramics Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors., 2001[2] PLR, 218, the Division Bench of this Court held that the respondents could charge simple interest @ 10% for the delayed payments. No distinguishable feature in the present case has been highlighted. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to re-calculate the interest payable by the petitioner at the simple rate of 10% which the petitioner shall be liable to pay in lump sum within a period of two months from the date of intimation, failing which the respondents shall be entitled to recover the arrears along with penal interest. The interest shall be charged on the balance amount from the due date only. Disposed of. February 16, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE