CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21646 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 23 ,2011 M/s Rajendras (India) Ltd., New Delhi .....Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad, and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, Advocate & Mr. Y.P.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Initially, the petitioner has filed Civil Writ Petition No.21646 of 2008 (M/s Rajendras (India) Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad, and another) with a prayer to direct the respondents to demarcate, develop the land and deliver the possession thereof. This move was apparently impregnated by hidden purpose and move. The petitioner, who had purchased a Cinema Site in City Centre, Sector 12, Faridabad, on 4.10.1987 is making a desperate effort to retain this allotment done in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21646 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 2 }: his favour, for a fairly low sum of `32 lacs even after expiry of over 20 years without making any payment other than the initial one. Though the writ petition was filed in the year 2008 and notice has been issued to the respondents but when the case came up for hearing on 2.2.2011, the counsel for the petitioner was asked to make submissions about the maintainability of the petition for directing the respondents to demarcate the plot and to hand over the possession without making payment. It was then noticed that basically the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of `2.5 crores, which he had challenged by filing another Civil Writ Petition No.19027 of 2010 (M/s Rajendras (India) Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad), which was coming up for hearing on 23.5.2011. At that stage, the petitioner was given an option to deposit some amount to show his bonafides if the petitioner wanted his prayer to be considered against the demand raised. The counsel voluntarily undertook to deposit a sum of `one crore subject to his rights as claimed in Civil Writ Petition No.19027 of 2010. Civil Writ Petition No.21646 of 2008 was accordingly adjourned to be heard with Civil Writ Petition No.19027 of 2010, which was fixed on 23.5.2011, with the observation that the prayer of the petitioner for handing over possession shall be considered if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.one crore. These writ petitions accordingly have been heard today and are being decided together through this common order. The allotment letter dated 11.11.1987 was issued to the petitioner after the allotment of Cinema Site for a sum of `32,01,000/- CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21646 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 3 }: and on deposit of 10% of the bid amount. The petitioner was to deposit 15% of the bid amount more within 30 days and thereafter was to discharge the remaining liability in terms of the allotment letter. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.4,80,150/- on 10.12.1987 to make up 25% of payment of the bid amount. The petitioner states that it was never offered possession of the site and the same was also not demarcated. Reference is made to a letter dated 30.6.1988 issued by the respondents to Chief Town Planner, for demarcation of the plot so that the possession could be delivered. As per the petitioner, no demarcation was done nor any development of the site was undertaken. The petitioner claims to have initiated various communications on 9.12.1987, 14.1.1988, 21.4.1988, 17.5.1988, 18.7.1988 and then on 27.1.1994. The petitioner had also sent one telegram on 13.4.1988, requesting the respondents to deliver the possession of the plot. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 21.4.1994, requiring him to deposit a sum of `49,53,875/-, which included levy of interest and other charges. In return, the petitioner asked the respondents to furnish him the details. As per the petitioner, he did not receive any response thereafter. The petitioner challenged the said notice by filing a petition before Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi (for short, “M.R.T.P.”), on 24.5.1995. As per the petitioner, the respondents had submitted before M.R.T.P., that no possession could be delivered to the petitioner as no development work had been taken on the site. Still, the petitioner had withdrawn the petition on 3.2.2003 to avail his CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21646 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 4 }: alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Administrator, HUDA. The petitioner accordingly filed appeal against the demand so raised. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner received another show cause noticed dated 24.6.2005, levying a penalty of `22,35,670/-. This is termed by the petitioner as unreasonable demand as the issue was pending adjudication before the Chief Administrator, HUDA. The appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 7.8.2006 and the case was remanded back to HUDA to determine the actual date of completion of the development work at the site. It is stated that Estate Officer, HUDA, has not yet complied with the direction and has even failed to demarcate the land. The petitioner accordingly has filed the writ petition making the prayer as noted. Respondent-HUDA has filed reply in Civil Writ Petition No.2177 of 2008, stating that the present writ petition is nothing but an attempt to undo legal and valid order passed by the competent authority. It is stated that the petitioner has tried to confound the confusion with an aim to take undue advantage to scuttle the liability to pay the charges required of the petitioner under law. The petitioner is also accused of suppressing true and material facts and, thus, is stated to have approached the Court with unclean hands. It is pointed out that the site was allotted to the petitioner in auction held on 24.10.1987. The petitioner had deposited 10% of the bid amount and thereafter allotment letter was issued to him on 11.11.1987. The schedule of payments was mentioned in Condition Nos.5 and 6 in the allotment letter, which the petitioner duly CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21646 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 5 }: accepted. When the petitioner failed to make the payment, a show cause notice was issued to him on 11.1.1990 and the petitioner had responded by saying that next payment would become due after the completion of the development work in the area. Necessary information regarding the development in the area was also given through memo dated 22.3.1994 and offer of possession was made to the petitioner through memo dated 21.4.1994. The petitioner was also informed that an amount of `49,53,875/- was due and was required to be deposited before taking over of the physical possession. Instead of discharging the liability, the petitioner filed a petition before the M.R.T.P. Ultimately an offer of compromise was made and the matter was scrutinized and directions were issued to the Commissioner to attend the office of Administrator, HUDA. During this period, the petitioner withdrew the complaint from the M.R.T.P. after making statement, seeking permission to file an appeal. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues, which now were to the tune of `1,61,59,950/- plus `61,96,720/- as extension fee. The petitioner was given time to deposit the amount upto 25.7.2002. Despite direction in the appeal for the petitioner to appear before Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad, he did not turn up. It is accordingly stated that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter and has not paid any instalment whatsoever and, therefore, has filed this writ petition with a motive and purpose to avoid liability and to seek allotment at the old rates, which can not be allowed. During the pendency of Civil Writ Petition No.21646 of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21646 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 6 }: 2008, a demand notice for payment of `2,57,80,306/- has been served upon the petitioner on 30.9.2010. The petitioner has, therefore, filed Civil Writ Petition No.19027 of 2010 to challenge this notice and praying for issuance of mandamus commanding the respondents to determine the actual date of completion of development work on the site after complying with the principles of natural justice. In this case also, notice of motion was issued. The reply has been filed, giving out the details as to how the petitioner so far has been able to avoid liability to make the payment. As per the reply, the outstanding dues now are `1,70,01950/- on account of instalments and `87,78,356/- on account of extension fee. The respondents accordingly have justified their action in issuing notice. Both these writ petitions were connected and were taken up for decision together as already noticed. The petitioner was required to show his bonafide if it was still interested in getting the Cinema Site. Since amount over Rs.two and a half crores was payable, the petitioner was asked to deposit some amount to show its bonafide. The counsel for the petitioner then, on proper instructions, had volunteered to pay a sum of Rs.one crore and this was so recorded in order dated 2.2.2011 in Civil Writ Petition No.21646 of 2008. The petitioner has failed to deposit this amount. At the time of hearing today, the counsel submitted before the Court that the petitioner is ready with the payment but would be prepared to deposit the same only if the respondents are directed to hand over the possession. This conditional offer was never made by the counsel on 2.2.2011 and this was seen as a ploy to avoid the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21646 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 7 }: payment. In fact, during some unguarded moments, the truth came out, when the counsel submitted before the Court that the petitioner did not want his `one crore to get blocked without any relief coming his way. Obviously, the petitioner is only indulging in one litigation after another ever since the date of allotment and has never been serious to discharge the liability. The schedule of payment was given in the allotment letter. The petitioner could pay the remaining amount of consideration either in lump-sum without interest within 60 days of the date of allotment or in yearly instalments with 10 percent interest. The firstly instalment was due after expiry of 6 months from the date of issue of the allotment letter. The interest was to accrue from the date of offer of possession. As already noted, the offer of possession was made to the petitioner on 21.4.1994. The petitioner was then required to pay an amount of `49,53,875/-. Instead, the petitioner filed petition before M.R.T.P. and thereafter an appeal to avoid the payment. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner is only playing hide and seek and is not interested in making any payment. No case, thus, is made out to issue direction to hand over the possession of the site to the petitioner. It is clear that Civil Writ Petition No.21646 of 2008 is filed only to avoid liability arising out of offer of possession of the site made to it in the year 1994. Even the Administrator, while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner, has observed that the petitioner has not deposited any amount during 18/19 years, as per the terms and conditions of allotment. The petitioner is described as chronic defaulter and it was observed that he did not deserve any leniency. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21646 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 8 }: The case was only remanded to Estate Officer, HUDA, to determine the actual date of completion of the development work. The petitioner thereafter failed to appear before the Estate Officer. The petitioner has then chosen to invoke the remedy of writ and has, thus, been able to avoid its liability for another period of two years. The petitioner still has been asked to deposit the amount due, which it has challenged by filing a second writ petition. The facts, as noticed, would clearly show that the petitioner really is not interested in making any payment and is misusing the process of Courts and authorities. A chronic defaulter is fighting to catch some straw but perhaps would not be able to swim across the difficulties that the petitioner has created for itself. The petitioner was given opportunity and a chance to make mends and show its bonfides but still failed to take advantage of the same. Had the petitioner been genuine, it could have availed this golden opportunity. This conduct would be enough to decline hearing to the petitioner once it has gone back from the undertaking made voluntarily before the Court. The petitioner is desperately sticking to a losing cause. There is, thus, no merit in both the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. May 23,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE