LPA No. 868 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 868 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.11.2009 The Estate Officer, HUDA & ors. ...Appellants Versus Mahesh Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate for Mr. Munish Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. -.- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of learned Singh Judge quashing cancellation of booth site allotted to the respondent, on the ground of delay of 35 days in making the deposit. Though, appellant has delayed filing of appeal by 189 days for which, condonation is sought, grievance is to condonation of delay of five days in favour of the respondent, without disputing genuineness of the ground put forward by the respondent. 2. The site in question was allotted to the respondent in an open auction. As per terms and conditions of allotment, 10% of the total amount was deposited at the spot and the remaining 15% which was to be deposited within 30 days. The respondent sought condonation on the ground of illness, pleading his confinement to bed. The said prayer was not accepted on the ground that delay beyond 30 days could not be condoned. 3. Learned Single Judge held that though as per policy of the appellant, there was power of condoning the delay, on payment of extra charges up to 30 days, in a fit case, longer delay could be condoned by the next higher authority on payment of surcharge alongwith penal interest. Reference was also made to policy dated 27.7.2005 envisaging condonation of delay up to 60 days, subject to certain payments. Accordingly, the LPA No. 868 of 2009 2 cancellation was set aside and the plot was directed to be restored, subject to payment of surcharge and penal interest. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. It is submitted that the case of the respondent is not covered under the policy and once there was a delay beyond 30 days, cancellation of allotment must follow. The appellant/HUDA is helpless and has no power to condone the said delay. Policy dated 27.7.2005 was not applicable to a commercial plot. 6. We are unable to accept the submission that the authority could not condone even short delay of five days which may have taken place for reasons beyond the control of an allottee. Such delay could always be condoned at some level in the hierarchy, subject to additional charges being given, in genuine cases. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the High Court Legal Aid Committee. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 23.11.2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE