RSA No.617 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 9322-C of 2008 and RSA No. 617 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 11, 2008 The Administrator/Chairman, Market Committee ...... Appellant Versus Bishambar Dayal ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Vivek Lamba, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. RSA No.617 of 2002 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 9322-C of 2008 & RSA No. 617 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 11, 2008 The Administrator/Chairman,Market Committee ...... Appellant Versus Bishambar Dayal ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Vivek Lamba, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 9322-C of 2008 Reply has been filed. For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 613 days in filing the application for restoration of appeal is condoned. The appeal is restored to its original number. RSA No. 617 of 2002 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent challenging the forfeiture of his earnest money. RSA No.617 of 2002 3 Both the Courts have found that the respondent purchased the shop in an open auction held on 25.11.90, allotment letter was issued on 19.3.1991 and by letter dated 29.8.91 respondent prayed for surrender of the plot and refund of his earnest money after making necessary deductions. The Courts found that as per policy Ex.PA the Board had taken a decision that surrender of allotted properties could be permitted after deducting 10% if the total bid. The departmental witness admitted that in several other cases such refunds had been given by the Board. In this view of the matter no infirmity can be found with the view taken by the learned Courts below. In the circumstances the questions proposed do not arise in the present appeal and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 11, 2008 sunita