IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14115 of 2008 Date of Decision : July 12, 2010. Harjit Kaur and others .....Petitioners versus Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority & Ors. .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sanjeev Manrai, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.H.S.Brar, Additional AG, Punjab. Mr.Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. -.- 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) The petitioners, who are residents of G.K.Enclave developed by M/s G.K.Estates and Finance Private Limited (Respondent No.3) under the control of Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority-respondent No.1 in the urban area of Ludhiana, seek a mandamus to direct respondent No.1-Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority, Ludhiana and its Estate Officer not to renew the licence of the above-stated builder- respondent No.3 till he provides the basic amenities like sewerage, water, electricity, road, sanitation etc. to the residents of G.K.Enclave. Despite several opportunities granted, no reply-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3 to controvert the allegations that no basic C.W.P.No .14115 of 2008 2 amenities have been provided in G.K.Enclave in terms of the allotment letters, despite the fact that the petitioners have been charged in advance for these basic amenities. The petitioners also seek an alternative direction to the Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority-respondent No.1 to provide the basic amenities to them on the plea that the builder/promoter- respondent No.3 has deposited 15% of the development charges with the Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority, Ludhiana. Respondent No.1-Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority has filed its reply-affidavit explaining that if a builder/promoter fails to honour his commitment with regard to completion of the development work, his bank guarantee furnished at the time of obtaining the licence can be forfeited and no completion certified is issued to him. It has also been explained that respondent No.3 is duty bound to provide all the basic amenities to the petitioners. Owing to the above-stated stand taken by the Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority-respondent No.1 and the fact that respondent No.3 has not come forward to controvert the petitioners' allegations, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- i) Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are directed to forfeit the bank guarantee, if any, given by respondent No.3 at the time of obtaining the licence; ii) Respondent Nos.1 & 2 or any other statutory development C.W.P.No .14115 of 2008 3 authority in the State of Punjab shall not grant any further licence nor shall renew the existing licence of respondent No.3 unless it completes all the development activities in G.K.Enclave, Ludhiana and/or other urban area developed by it; iii) Respondent Nos.1 & 2 shall not grant any completion certificate in favour of respondent No.3 until and unless the basic amenities are provided. These directions shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners and other residents of the locality to take any other legal action against respondent No.3, as may be available in law. Dispose of. Dasti. July 12, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE