IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14618 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 6th July, 2010. Balbir Singh & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate Versus U.T., Chandigarh & Ors. Respondents through Mr. K.K.Gupta, 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 petitioners are the allottees of SCO Site Nos. 224- 225, Sector 34, Chandigarh. The sites were allotted to them in an open auction held on 11.12.1998. The allotment letter was issued on 12.2.1999. The sites were subsequently resumed due to non- payment of the balance installments, which action of the respondents was annulled by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22.05.2006 [Annexure P-2]. The petitioners thereafter got possession of the sites and sought three years' extension to raise construction. Vide the impugned order dated 8.6.2009 [Annexure P-8], the petitioners were granted extension in time for one year subject to payment of extension fee. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while restoring the allotment of the subject sites, the respondents have charged penal interest from the petitioners which they were not entitled to in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court and/or the Rules. He submits that should the respondents exempt the petitioners from penal interest, the excess amount paid by them towards the same can be very well adjusted against the extension fee demanded from them vide the impugned order. As prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioners, they are permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to submit a representation to the respondents for the refund/grant exemption from payment of penal interest and if on reconsideration of the matter, the respondents find that the petitioners were not liable to pay any penal interest, such excess amount deposited by them shall be adjusted against the extension fee demanded by the respondents. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the petitioners have not got enough time to raise the construction as most of the time has gone in one or the other litigation, it is directed that subject to payment of extension fee as prescribed, the petitioners may be granted one year's more extension to raise the construction. Disposed of. Dasti. July 06, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE