IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14503 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:05.04.2011 M/s Shakti Roller Flour Mills ....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.K.B.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Reeta Kohli, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. Through the writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a mandamus to secure the refund of a penal levy of interest obtained by the second respondent-Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation (PSIEC) from the petitioner and which, through a package offer made by the Corporation, the petitioner claimed, he was entitled to a refund. The petitioner place reliance on P1, which was issued for the benefit of accelerated growth of industry, a package of concessions to plot holders that included the waiver of penal interest, provided they cleared the dues Civil Writ Petition No.14503 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - upto 31.12.1988. This very document also provided in clause (iii) as follows:- “iii) These concessions will not be applicable in those cases where no dues certificate have already been issued after settling their accounts.” 2. The contention of the petitioner was that such a clause contravened Article 14 and a person, who had made the payment, could not have been denied the right of entitlement for refund of the penal levy collected by the Corporation. The act providing for penalty cannot be taken to be wrong or illegal. A slew of concession granted by a Corporation would invariably be only to some defaulters, who due to some reasons were unable to make the payment. It is another way of recognizing the fact that amongst the allottees, there could be some persons, who would still not complete the constructions and cause impediment to the growth of the industry itself. If some defaulters had been recognized to secure some privileges, it does not mean that even a person, who was able to pay the money and also the penal charges already levied would be entitled to obtain a refund. The clause making it specifically inapplicable to cases where there had been already payments made and construction completed cannot avail of any benefit under this package deal. I do not find any arbitrariness in the approach. The mandamus sought for is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.04.2011 sanjeev