C.W.P. No. 11838 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11838 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 14.09.2011 Rajnish Mittal .....Petitioner Versus The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and another .....Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Jarnail Kaur, Advocate for respondents. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 19.5.2008 (Annexure P2) passed by the Estate officer, PUDA, Patiala and order dated 20.8.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, under Punjab Urban Development Acts and Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'PUDA Act'). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. In this case, the petitioner along with others have participated in public auction of plots of Hira Enclave Nabha held on 20.2.2008. The petitioner gave highest bid for Rs. 26,65,000/- for Plot No. 141, (Park faces). As per rules, the petitioner deposited 10% of the auction amount i.e. Rs. 2,65,000/- immediately at the spot. As per condition of auction, he was C.W.P. No. 11838 of 2009 2 require to deposit 15% of the auction amount within a period of 30 days from the date of auction. Undisputedly the petitioner did not deposit 15% of the bid within one month of the auction. Thereafter on 17.4.2008, the respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner to deposit 15% of the amount upto 20.3.2008. Even on the said notice, he did not deposit the said amount. Ultimately in view of the condition No. 5 of the auction term and condition, the plot was cancelled vide order dated 19.5.2008. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by order dated 20.8.2008 as the petitioner has not deposited the 15% amount within time as stipulated in the condition. It is undisputed fact that as far as PUDA is concerned there is no policy in which time can be extended to deposit the earnest amount by the bidder. However, during the course of arguments learned counsel has referred a decision of this Court in CWP No. 16714 of 2008 titled as Sarvjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 30.5.2009, in support of his contention that if the reasonable explanation is given the time for depositing the amount can be extended. On perusal of judgment, we find that the said judgment pertains to HUDA where there is a policy for extension of time. Secondly, in the said judgment the major portion of 15% i.e. Rs. 11,48,000/- was paid within time and a meager amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- was deposited after the prescribed time. Therefore the said judgment is not applicable in this case. Since according to rules the successful bidder is required to deposit 10% immediately at the spot and 15% within a month as per auction condition which undisputedly the petitioner has not deposited, therefore, the authorities have rightly cancelled the allotment in favour of petitioner. We C.W.P. No. 11838 of 2009 3 do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 14.09.2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) reema JUDGE