Civil Writ Petitions No. 13548 of 2008, 1015, 1 1016, 1017, 1018, 1020, 1062, 14793 and 19228 of 2009 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 1. Civil Writ Petition No. 13548 of 2008 Virender Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents 2. Civil Writ Petition No. 1015 of 2009 Smt. Hema …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents 3. Civil Writ Petition No.1016 of 2009 Smt. Neelam …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents 4. Civil Writ Petition No.1017 of 2009 Smt. Neelam …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents 5. Civil Writ Petition No.1018 of 2009 Smt. Neelam …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents Civil Writ Petitions No. 13548 of 2008, 1015, 2 1016, 1017, 1018, 1020, 1062, 14793 and 19228 of 2009 6. Civil Writ Petition No. 1020 of 2009 Smt. Hema …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents 7. Civil Writ Petition No. 1062 of 2009 Smt. Hema …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondent 8. Civil Writ Petition No. 14793 of 2009 Kulwant Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents AND 9. Civil Writ Petition No. 19228 of 2009 Rajiv Chugh and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents Date of Decision: 14.7.2010 Civil Writ Petitions No. 13548 of 2008, 1015, 3 1016, 1017, 1018, 1020, 1062, 14793 and 19228 of 2009 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners (In Civil Writ Petitions No. 13548 of 2008, 1015, 1017, 1018, and 1062 of 2009). Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioners (In Civil Writ Petitions No. 1016 and 1020 of 2009). Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioners (In Civil Writ Petitions No. 14793 and 19228 of 2009). Mr. Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2 (In all the Civil Writ Petitions). Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.3 (In Civil Writ Petition No. 13548 of 2008), respondents No.3 and 4 (In Civil Writ Petitions No.19228 of 2009). Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.3 (In Civil Writ Petitions No. 1015 to1018, 1020 and 1062 of 2009). Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, all the nine writ petitions viz. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 13458 of 2008, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1020, 1062, 14793 and 19228 of 2009, shall be disposed of. The Municipal Council, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra- respondent No.3, issued a public notice for auction on rent of various newly constructed shops and show rooms built at Palika Shopping Complex, Thanesar. The petitioners participated in the auction held on 18.10.2006 and were declared as successful bidders. The auction notice contained a specific condition No.10 stating that the possession of the shop, show room, duplex will be delivered by the Municipal Council, Civil Writ Petitions No. 13548 of 2008, 1015, 4 1016, 1017, 1018, 1020, 1062, 14793 and 19228 of 2009 Thanesar, to the tenant/successful bidder, within a period of three months. The case of the Municipal Council is that a letter dated 30.11.2006 was issued to the successful bidders to execute the agreement but they never came forward to do so. In these writ petitions, it has been projected that the auctioned property was neither ready for delivering possession as the construction was incomplete nor the civic amenities were available at site. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court had appointed a Local Commissioner, who submitted his report, to which serious objections have been raised. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, has submitted his report to which also the objections have been filed by the petitioners. A serious dispute exists between the parties on the following issues:- A) Whether the petitioners, willfully and intentionally, were not coming forward to execute the agreement? B) Whether the shops in question were ready for delivery of possession or not? C) Whether the execution of agreement was dependent upon delivery of possession? D) Whether at the relevant time, when the allotment letter was issued and an offer was made that an agreement be executed, the shops were built up to the extent that the possession could be offered or not? Civil Writ Petitions No. 13548 of 2008, 1015, 5 1016, 1017, 1018, 1020, 1062, 14793 and 19228 of 2009 Condition No.10 of the Auction Notice (Annexure P1) specifically states that after the possession is delivered, then only the rent has to commence. Therefore, the second question to be answered is, as to from which date, the Municipal Council can make successful bidder/tenant liable to pay rent. During the course of arguments, the parties have agreed that since in the agreement, which was to be executed between the parties, there is a specific condition to resolve any dispute between the parties, the matter be referred to the Arbitrator. Therefore, this Court cannot entertain these petitions and the matter should be sent for arbitration. The agreement, which was to be executed, contained a provision that the Deputy Commissioner is the sole Arbitrator. Since, in the present case, the Deputy Commissioner has submitted a report and has taken a definite stand, a suggestion has been made by all concerned that the arbitration dispute be referred to some independent person, preferably a retired Judge of this Court, in the interest of equity and fair play. This Court appreciates fair stand taken by all the Advocates, representing their parties. Learned counsel for the parties, on instructions from all the concerned, who are present in the Court, as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, who is assisting learned counsel for the State, have suggested and agreed to the name of Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta, a retired Judge of this Court, to act as a sole Arbitrator. Civil Writ Petitions No. 13548 of 2008, 1015, 6 1016, 1017, 1018, 1020, 1062, 14793 and 19228 of 2009 Thus, on the point of dispute which has been enumerated in this order, the matter is referred to Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta, a retired Judge of this Court, sole Arbitrator, who shall fix his own remuneration, which shall be shared by the Municipal Council, Kurukshetra and the petitioners, equally. A request is made to the arbitrator that the dispute be resolved finally, preferably within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Arbitrator on 21.7.2010 and produce all the necessary documents. Till the passing of the award, recovery of penal interest, if imposed, is stayed. With the observations made above, all the writ petitions are disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 14, 2010 “DK”