IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13274 of 2008. Date of Decision: 25th May, 2009. Joginder Singh ...Petitioner through Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate Versus C.A., HUDA & Ors. .Respondents through Mr. Sidharth Batra, 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) The petitioner seeks quashing of the Memo dated 19.6.2008 whereby his request for condoning the delay in depositing 15% of the allotment price, has been declined. The petitioner was allotted a residential Plot No. 1488 in Sector 2, Palwal vide allotment letter dated 10.11.2006. As per the terms and conditions [clause 5], the petitioner was required to deposit 15% of the allotment price within thirty days. The petitioner is stated to have got prepared a Demand Draft No. 82270831 dated 19.12.2006 in favour of the Estate Officer, Faridabad but he did not send the same to the Estate Officer concerned allegedly due to ill- health. The petitioner sent the Demand Draft along with an application dated 16.3.2007 after a delay of 127 days. The Estate Officer, Faridabad forwarded the petitioner's application to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula who vide the impugned communication dated 19.6.2008 has turned down the petitioner's request. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. It is explained that on receipt of the petitioner's representation, the Chief Administrator, HUDA asked the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad to seek the comments of the petitioner for non-deposit of 15% amount within time. The petitioner is stated to have submitted that he is an illiterate person and resides in fields and was suffering from Asthma and that the amount could not be deposited due to lapse on the part of his son. When the comments purportedly submitted by the petitioner were put up before the Chief Administrator, it was noticed that the signatures of the petitioner were different from those on the previous documents. The petitioner was accordingly directed to appear in person before the Chief Administrator but he failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing despite two communications sent to him. It is thereafter that the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and records perused. Undeniably, the Chief Administrator, HUDA is competent to condone the delay up to 180 days in terms of the HUDA policy dated 20.3.2007 [Annexure P-9] provided that he is satisfied with the genuineness and cause of delay. No fault can be found with the procedure followed by the Chief Administrator, who also gave an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. However, in the interest of justice, and as a last opportunity, this writ petition is allowed to the limited extent that the impugned order is set aside with a direction that the petitioner may, if so wants, appear before respondent No. 1 and satisfy regarding genuineness of the reasons which really prevented him from depositing 15% amount within time. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the Chief Administrator as and when the date of appearance is communicated to him through the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad. However, keeping in view the alleged difference in the signatures of the petitioner, there appears to be some substance in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner might have sold the plot in favour of the holder of the Special Power of Attorney through whom the writ petition has been filed. Consequently, it is directed that besides personal appearance, the petitioner shall also file an affidavit that he has not disposed of the said plot nor if the delay is condoned and 15% amount is accepted, he shall transfer the said plot in favour of third party for a reasonable period as may be determined by the HUDA authorities. The petitioner shall also explain his relationship with the holder of Special Power of Attorney. Suffice it to say that in case the authorities arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner has already sold the plot for consideration, the delay may not be condoned on the strength of explanation tendered by him. The needful shall be done by respondent No. 1 as early as possible and preferably within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. Dasti. May 25, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE