C.W.P NO. 8069 OF 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 8069 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 12.05.2009 Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11.01.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Haryana State Agricultural Board/Market Committee, whereby appeal against the show cause notice has been dismissed. The petitioner's grievance is that since possession of the subject plot was not offered to him, no penal or compound interest was leviable. The petitioner's second grievance is that the respondents have already exempted the similarly situated allottees from payment of compound and penal interest, therefore, also the petitioner cannot be discriminated. C.W.P NO. 8069 OF 2008 -2- Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit which reveals that the petitioner has repeatedly defaulted in payment of the installments and as such, he was asked to pay the penal and compound interest, as per the agreed terms and conditions of allotment. The only question to be determined is as to whether or not the petitioner is liable to pay the penal and compound interest on the delayed payments ? The parties are governed by the terms and conditions of allotment as contained in the allotment letter dated 01.10.1999 (Annexure P-2). It stipulates as follows : “4. The sum of Rs.4,00,500/- paid by you as earnest money has been adjusted in your plot account. You are requested to remit of sum of Rs.12,01,500/- on account of 75% balance-sale of price either within 30 days of receipt of this allotment letter without interest or in six half yearly installments together within interest @ 15% per annum accruing from the date of issue of this letter as mentioned hereunder : -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-.-.-.-.- No. of Due date Amount of Interest Total Remarks Instal- of Instal- Instalment @15% ments ments -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- C.W.P NO. 8069 OF 2008 -3- 1st 1.04.2000 2,00,250/- 90,112/- 2,90,362/- 2nd 1.04.2000 2,00,250/- 75,094/- 2,75,344/- 3rd 1.04.2001 2,00,250/- 60,075/- 2,60,325/- 4th 1.10.2001 2,00,250/- 45,056/- 2,45,306/- 5th 1.04.2002 2,00,250/- 30,037/- 2,30,287/- 6th 1.10.2002 2,00,250/- 15,019/- 2,15,269/- -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- 5. In case of failure to deposit the installment (a) by 10th of the month due, compound interest @ 15% P.A along with penal interest @ 4% P.A with installments shall be charged.” There is no pre-condition in the allotment letter that the penal or compound interest would be leviable only if the possession is offered to the petitioner. In a recent judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1994 of 2006 decided on March 17, 2009 titled as, “U.T. Chandigarh Administration and another vs. Amarjeet Singh and others”, their lordships have ruled as follows : “ We asked the learned counsel for the parties to tell us which is the obligation of the lessor in the lease deed which says that they will not charge interest on the installments before providing the amenities. There is neither any C.W.P NO. 8069 OF 2008 -4- condition in the lease nor any obligation under the auction, if the parties have given their bids and with their eyes wide open, they have to blame themselves. It cannot be enforced by any mandamus as there is no obligation contained in the lease deed or in the auction-notice”. Therefore, it is evident that a lessee/successful bidder cannot seek rescheduling of the installments of premium or postponement of accrual of the interest payable as per rules. We are not in a position to accept the submission of Shri Bhandare that equity would not demand charging of interest, even though the plots are yet to be fully developed. When parties enter into contract, they are to abide by the terms and conditions of the same, unless the same be inequitable. In the present case, question of equity does not really arise in as much as the condition relating to interest is founded on a statutory rule, vires of which has not been challenged” (emphasis added) If interest could not be denied to the state government even when there was an assurance of all “modern amenities”. It is needless to say that the claim of the government will be much C.W.P NO. 8069 OF 2008 -5- more stronger, when there is no assurance at all, as in this case”. In this view of the matter, there can be no escape but to hold that the petitioner having defaulted in payment of due installments as per the agreed Schedule, the respondents have rightly held him liable to pay the penal and compound interest as per the agreed terms and conditions of the allotment. However, having regard to the fact that the view taken by this Court earlier in some of the cases decided before the above referred judgment of the Supreme Court came, it is directed that if the petitioner deposits all the dues within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, no action like resumption of the site shall be taken against him. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Let a copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. MAY 12, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE