CWP No.5564 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5564 of 2007 Date of decision: January 09, 2009. Mahesh Kumar ...Petitioner(s) v. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Vishal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Nara, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 8.2.2007 (Annexure P-5) whereby allotment of booth site No.71, Sector 4, Gurgaon has been cancelled and the amount of 10% of the plot price deposited by him has been forfeited. The petitioner was allotted booth No.71, Sector 4, Gurgaon in an open auction being the highest bidder. As per the terms and conditions of allotment, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1,31,000/-, i.e., 10% of the total sale consideration at the spot whereas 15% thereof was required to CWP No.5564 of 2007 -: 2 :- be deposited by him within 30 days. According to the petitioner, he fell ill and was diagnosed as suffering with hepatitis and was advised complete bed rest for 54 days by the Doctor (certificate Annexure P-2) due to which the requisite 15% amount of the sale consideration, i.e., Rs.1,96,500/- was deposited by him after a delay of 35 days though he deposited the same along with interest. Notwithstanding the recommendations made by the Estate Officer to accept the said amount, the higher authorities turned down the petitioner's request and cancelled the allotment. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which the facts noticed above are broadly admitted. According to the respondents, the condonation of delay in depositing 15% amount in such like cases is governed by their policy dated 27.7.2005 (Annexure R-1). It would be apposite to reproduce clause (b) of the said policy which reads as follows:- “B. Condonation of delay in respect of Commercial/residential plots (allotted through auction) (beyond 30 days) S.N. Period of condonation Concerned Officer Rate of surcharge who can condone leviable on 15% the delay amount 1. Upto 15 days Estate Officer 2.5% 2. Upto 30 days Administrator 5% Besides surcharge the allottee shall have to pay penal interest @ 14% p.a. (or as decided by Authority from time to time) on the 15% amount for the delayed period, to be reckoned from the date of allotment.” A perusal of the above policy, thus, reveals that the Administrator, HUDA himself is competent to condone the delay upto 30 days though the allottee is liable to pay surcharge @ 5% on the 15% amount, besides penal interest @ 14% per annum. Though the delay in the CWP No.5564 of 2007 -: 3 :- petitioner's case is of 35 days, however, in the given facts and circumstances where the respondents do not suffer any monetary loss, in my considered view, the delay of five days more could be condoned by the next higher authority, namely, the Chief Administrator, HUDA by levying suitable surcharge along with penal interest. Learned Counsel for the Respondents does not dispute the fact that the above mentioned policy dated 27.7.2005 has been subsequently revised and in terms thereof, delay of more than 60 days can also be condoned by the superior authorities, though on certain conditions. For the reasons afore-stated, this writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 8.2.2007 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and the respondents are directed to restore the allotment of booth No.71, Sector 4, Gurgaon in favour of the petitioner subject to, however, his paying the surcharge and penal interest on the delayed amount in accordance with the HUDA policy. January 09, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge