CWP No. 18517 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 18517 of 2007 Date of decision 1 .12.2008 Anoop Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: None for the petitioner. Mrs. Jarnail Kaur Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondents 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 2.11.2006 ( Annexure P.6) passed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula- respondent no.2 to the extent the petitioner had been asked to deposit the amount of interest @ 15 percent p.a. on the bid amount. The allegation of the petitioners is that possession of the allotted shops in vegetable market has not been delivered nor the basic infrastructure/ amenities have been provided. A further prayer for expeditious completion of infrastructure/ development work in the vegetable market and to deliver possession of the shops purchased by them in auction has also been made. The instant petition has been filed by 8 petitioners. However, representative facts of two of the petitioners i.e. petitioner nos. 1 and 7 are being extracted. Petitioner no.1 was allotted shop No.2 on 10.11.2001 in CWP No. 18517 of 2007 2 the new vegetable market at a price of Rs. 18,05,000/-. He deposited a sum of Rs. 4,32,000/- being 25 percent of the allotment price. The balance amount of Rs. 13,73,000/- was to be paid in lump sum or in six half yearly instalments. As per the assertion made by the petitioners, the payment schedule is as under: S.No. Of instalments Due date of instalment Amount of the instalment Interest @ 15% p.a. Total amount of the instalment 1 10/05/02 228823.33 102975 331808.33 2 10/11/02 228823.33 85812.5 314445.83 3 10/05/03 228823.33 68650 297483.33 4 10/11/03 228823.33 51487.5 263158.33 5 10/05/04 228823.33 34325 263158.33 6 10/11/04 228823.33 17162.5 245995.83 Likewise, petitioner no. 7 was allotted shop no. 6 on 10.11.2001 at a price of Rs. 16,61,000/-. an amount of Rs. 4,16,000/- being 25 percent of the amount was required to be deposited immediately while balance amount of Rs. 12,45,000/- was to be paid as per the schedule which is as under: S.No. Of instalments Due date of instalment Amount of the instalment Interest @ 15% p.a. Total amount of the instalment 1 10/05/02 207500 93375 300875 2 10/11/02 207500 77812.5 285312.5 3 10/05/03 207500 62250 269750 4 10/11/03 207500 46687.5 254187.5 5 10/05/04 207500 31125 238625 6 10/11/04 207500 15562.5 22362.5 Similar details have been given with respect to Shri Sat Pal, Moti Lal and others. Although no detail is forthcoming with regard to petitioner no.2, Diwakar Kumar Sapra. Their basic grievance is that no facilities have been provided to the allottees for transacting their day to day business and therefore no interest could be charged till then whereas the CWP No. 18517 of 2007 3 respondents have seriously disputed the afore mentioned fact by stating in the written statement that there was no pre-condition at the time of allotment that the plot would be offered after providing amenities and immediate basic amenities existed at the time of allotment. The respondent has placed reliance on a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh v. M/s Shanti Kunj Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. (2006) 4 SCC 109. The details of the facilities have been given in para 2(l) which reads as under: S.No. Description of items Exp. Incurred Completion 1. Pdg. Lighting Instt. Rs.0.86 lacs 12/1991 in NVM at Gurgaon 2. Pdg. One No. Tower Rs.2.11 lacs 07/1995 lighting Instt. In NVM Gurgaon S.No. Name of facilities Estimate cost Ex. In lacs Remarks 3. Individual platform 7.60 9.33 work complete roads and parking lacs on 1992-93 individual platforms and roads 4.Provding CC pavement 56.64 Work in progress on individual platforms and roads Total 64.24 9.33 (lacs) S.No. Particulars/ Estimated cost Exp. In lacs Remarks Head upto 31.05.08 5. Water supply 1,76,397/- Work in progress 6. Sewerage (25.50 lacs) 2,13,166/- NVM .................................................................. It is thus evident that in the vegetable market the afore- mentioned facilities provided by the respondents are adequate although the sewerage work is continuing. It has also come on record that possession has been delivered to the petitioners on 10.11.2001 and they are transacting their business. There is no provision cited by the petitioners in their petition to conclude that there is statutory obligation to make available the afore- CWP No. 18517 of 2007 4 mentioned facilities or amenities. Therefore the judgement in M/s Shanti Kunj's case (supra) would apply to the facts of the present case that there is no condition precedent to provide all the amenities to the petitioners. Once basic amenities for transacting the business have been provided then it cannot be claimed as a condition precedent to provide all the facilities. A perusal of the facilities provided by the respondents would show that installation of lights in the new vegetable market was completed in December, 1991 and July, 1995. Likewise platforms, road and parking was also completed in 1992 and 1993. The concrete pavement on individual platforms and roads are in the process of being provided. The work of water supply and sewerage is still in progress. It has come on record that the water supply is ensured during the season. The Chief Administrator has also waived interest and penal interest on the instalments and has ordered recovery @ 15 percent only. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 2.11.29006 ( Annexure P.6) passed by the Chief Administrator of the Board does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The relief claimed in the petition is based on an unwarranted excuse for non payment of interest of 15 percent. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jora Singh) 1.12.2008 Judge okg