IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 15612 of 2008. Date of Decision: 23rd March, 2009. Dharmender Singh & Ors. ....Petitioners through Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. .Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, Sr. DAG, Haryana Mr. Amit 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) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 15612, 19138 of 2008 and 4372 of 2004 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 15612 of 2008. The petitioners have been allotted plots in the New Grain Market/Sub Yard at Beri, District Jhajjar in the open auction held in the year 2001. They have raised three fold grievance in this petition. Firstly, they seek a prohibitory direction to restrain the respondents from imposing any extension fee. Their second grievance is against the penal and compound interest recoverable along with half yearly installments towards the allotment price; and thirdly they seek a direction to the respondents to complete the development works and provide basic amenities in the New Grain Sub Yard in a time-bound manner. The gravamen of the allegations are that in the new Sub Yard at village Beri, no action whatsoever to provide the basic amenities has been taken. The petitioners have placed on record some photographs to suggest that the area is still lying as barren land. Though some development activities like construction of roads have been recently started in August, 2008, nevertheless the petitioners are being burdened with extension fee for non- construction of their plots besides asking them to pay interest and penal interest on the monthly installments. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, respondents No. 2 to 4 have filed their reply/affidavit. It is explained that the petitioners have paid 25% of the allotment price whereas 75% balance was required to be paid in six half yearly installments with interest @15% per annum and in the event of delay, the allottees are liable to pay further interest @ 4% per annum chargeable half yearly in additional to the normal interest. As regards provision of the basic amenities, it is averred in the written statement that most of the basic facilities have been provided for running the seasonal business of sale purchase, i.e., common platform, roads, public toilets, electricity and drinking water. As the petitioners strenuously disputed the respondent's stand, the Executive Officer of the Board was directed to be present in Court, who in turn, informs that the work of boundary wall is near completion, whereas sewerage work is also going on and would not take more than a year in completion. He also points out that the water supply shall be provided within three months. As regards the electricity, the Executive Officer informs that since it is a seasonal Sub Yard, the temporary electricity connection is taken during every season. He undertakes that before arrival of the wheat crop in the Sub Yard in the first week of April,2009 the electricity supply shall be ensured well in advance. The stand now taken on behalf of the respondents during the course of hearing, does suggest that all the basic amenities have not been provided so far. Suffice it to say that sewerage, water and electricity supply during the business season are essential basic amenities. There appears to be some justification in the petitioners' contention that due to non-availability of these amenities, they are unable to raise construction of their shops for which they have been burdened with non-construction charges. Since the waiving off the extension fee entails a policy matter, I am of the considered view that firstly the whole issue as to whether or not the petitioners, for lack of basic amenities for a long period of time, are entitled to the waiver of extension fee, wholly or partly, needs to be considered and disposed of by the Chief Administrator of the Board. Consequently, the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board is directed to consider the petitioners' claim for their exemption from payment of extension fee till the basic amenities are provided to them and dispose of the said claim by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. The second issue, namely, providing basic amenities within a time bound manner, it is directed that the work of boundary wall as well as water supply shall be completed within three months from today, whereas the on-going sewerage work shall be got completed by 30.11.2009. Similarly, the respondents shall ensure that the temporary electricity connection is made available well in advance before the start of the season. As regards the petitioners' claim for non-payment of interest or penal interest, in my considered view, no relief can be granted to them. The interest on the half yearly installments is required to be paid on the sale price of the plots which could be deposited by the petitioners in lump-sum without any interest. The payment of interest, thus, has no nexus or relevance with the non- availability of basic amenities. The prayer of the petitioners regarding exemption from payment of interest is, accordingly, declined. In case the petitioners deposit the due installments within two months from today, no coercive action, like resumption of plots etc. shall be taken. The due installments shall be deposited by the petitioners without prejudice to their right to seek waiver of interest component also as has been reportedly done in the case of allottees of New Market Sub Yard, Meham. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Dasti. March 23, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE