CWP No.2530 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2530 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2010 **** Ram Pal . . . . Petitioner VS. Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary Government of Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department, Chandigarh and others . . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Ashok Khubbar, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sheenu Suri, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Ms. Sheenu Suri, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the HUDA authorities. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counter-reply/affidavit at this stage. (2). The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 06.12.2007 (Annexure P7, P8 & P9, respectively), whereby, the allotment of booth No.10,11 & 12 made vide allotment letter dated 24.07.2006 CWP No.2530 of 2010.doc - 2 – (Annexure P1, P2 & P3) in the Mandi Township, Pundri has been cancelled and the sites have been resumed due to non-deposit of the 15% of the auction amount. (3). The petitioner is equally aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2009 (Annexure P14), whereby his revision petition against the orders of resumption, has been turned down by respondent No.2 on the ground of delay. (4). The petitioner was the highest bidder for booth No.10,11 & 12 in Mandi Township, Pundri held by HUDA on 17th February, 2006. Though he deposited 10% of the bid amount but he failed to deposit 15% thereof within 30 days from the date of acceptance of the bid. As a result thereto, the allotment(s) were cancelled and the sites resumed. (5). It appears that the petitioner filed revision petition seeking condonation of delay after a period of one and a half year. It is urged that in terms of the HUDA policy dated 20th March, 2007 (Annexure P15), the power to condone delay beyond 180 days in the deposit of 15% of the bid amount lies with CWP No.2530 of 2010.doc - 3 – the Chairman of the Authority, namely, the Chief Minister, Haryana. (6). On the other hand, the impugned revisional order dated 29.12.2009 (Annexure P14) has been passed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA. (7). In these circumstances and for the reasons assigned in the order dated February 16, 2009 passed in CWP No.16583 of 2008 (Umkal Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. HUDA and others), the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Chairman of the HUDA being competent authority under the above mentioned policy who shall consider and dispose of the petitioner’s prayer in accordance with the law/HUDA policy as early as possible. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 06.07.2010 vishal shonkar