CWP No. 2436 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 2436 of 2008 Date of decision 1 .12.2008 Mohinder Singh Kalyan ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. GPS Bal, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 15.2.2008 (Annexure P.11) passed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula rejecting his claim for allotment of discretionary quota plot No.28, Sector 46, Faridabad. It may at the outset be noticed that allotment of all discretionary quota plots was subject matter of challenge before a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Sabharwal v. State of Haryana 1997(2) PLR 6. The matter travelled upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court and in the case of Harish Dhingra v. State of Haryana (2009) 1 SCC 550 it was held that the doctrine of prospective over-ruling could apply and all the discretionary quota plots allotted on or before 22.4.1996 were accorded protection because there was an interim order passed in Anil Sabharwal's case (supra) on 23.4.1996 restraining the respondent- State of Haryana from allotting any discretionary quota plot. It is in the background of the above principles that the facts of CWP No. 2436 of 2008 2 the present case have to be examined. On 5.7.1995, the Chief Administrator, HUDA addressed a letter to the petitioner stating that Government was considering for the allotment of one kanal plot in Sector 46, Urban Estate, Faridabad to him subject to certain conditions. On 27.12.1995 another letter in continuation was issued fixing the tentative rate of the plot and informed the petitioner that 25 percent of the payment of the total cost is to be paid by him. Accordingly it was directed that if the offer of allotment was acceptable to him then he would have to deposit a sum of Rs.1,41,409/-. There was some delay in depositing the amount which was required to be deposited within a period of 30 days. Accordingly the delay was also condoned vide letter dated 3.4.1996 and demand for 25 percent of the amount alongwith interest @ 18 percent p.a. was raised on 17.4.1996 ( Annexure P.4). The petitioner was required to pay a sum, of Rs. 1,57,692/-/ However, the petitioner did not deposit any amount even after condonation of delay. On 28.9.2002 he sent a representation with an amount of Rs. 1,57,692/- (Annexure P.6). However, the same was returned to him on 14.1.2003 ( Annexure P.7). The petitioner made a detailed representation to the Chief Administrator and then filed CWP No.17093 of 2007 which was disposed of with a direction to the Chief Administrator to consider his representation dated 23.6.2006 by passing a detailed order. Consequently, the impugned order has been passed by recording the finding that the petitioner never deposited the amount equivalent to 25% amounting to Rs. 1,41,409/- nor he deposited the revised amount of Rs. 1,57,692/-. He deposited the amount only on 28.9.2002 which is much later than the cut of date of 23.4.1996. Having learned learned counsel we are of the considered view that once the petitioner has not deposited any amount before the cut of date CWP No. 2436 of 2008 3 fixed in Harish Dhingra's case (supra) then no right of allotment of plot would arise in his favour. If the plot is allotted to him under the discretionary quota then it would be violative of the principles laid down in Harish Dhingra's case (supra) as no allotment could be made after 23.4.1996. By no stretch of imagination we can accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the cut of date should be fixed by referring to the process of allotment which started on 5.7.1995 and not by actual date of depositing the amount on 28.9.2001 because no such right could be deemed to have come into existence merely on the basis of inviting application which were subject to payment of 25 percent of the amount alongwith certain other formalities. The amount could only be deposited in 2001. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jora Singh) 1.12.2008 Judge okg