CWP No.19828 of 2009 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10.05.2011 (i) CWP No.19828 of 2009 (O & M) Satpal .. Petitioner Versus Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others .. Respondents (ii) CWP No.20249 of 2009 (O & M) Jai Dayal and another .. Petitioner Versus Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others .. Respondents (iii) CWP No.19829 of 2009 (O & M) Sanjeev Kumar .. Petitioner Versus Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others .. Respondents (iv) CWP No.5336 of 2010 (O & M) Rajinder Singh and another .. Petitioner Versus Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others .. Respondents CWP No.19828 of 2009 (O & M) ::2:: (v) CWP No.836 of 2010 (O & M) Gurmit Singh and another .. Petitioner Versus Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. Present:- Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate. Ms.Surabhi Jain, Advocate, for Mr.Ravi Kapur, Advocate. Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate. Mr.Amit Jaiswal, Advocate. **** RANJIT SINGH J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of writ petitions No. CWP No.19828 of 2009 (O & M), CWP No.20249 of 2009 (O & M), CWP No.19829 of 2009 (O & M), CWP No.5336 of 2010 (O & M) and CWP No.836 of 2010 (O & M) as identical questions of fact and law are involved in the said petitions. The facts are being taken from CWP No.19828 of 2009. The petitioners were allotted booths in a New Vegetable Market in District Kurukshetra by way of open auction held on 16.01.2003. The size of the booth was measuring 12 ft. x 27.5 ft. The petitioner deposited 25% of the auction amount i.e. Rs.1,63,000/- as per the schedule fixed. The balance 75% amount was to be paid in six half-yearly instalments with 15% interest per annum. The bids were approved on 15.09.2004 and the letter of CWP No.19828 of 2009 (O & M) ::3:: allotment was given to the petitioner, on 03.11.2004. The petitioner did not pay the remaining instalments. The reason of non-payment is that respondents though had carved out New Vegetable Market, Ladwa, yet basic facilities i.e. platform, electricity, sewerage, individual water connection, tubewell, etc. were not provided at the said location. The possession was offered to the petitioners on 29.06.2006. The petitioners still did not pay any instalments. In between, the petitioners also filed representation for providing these facilities as was promised in the allotment letter. The petitioner, however, had made some payments on 14.05.2007 when he deposited an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. Another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was deposited by the petitioner on 08.07.09 and remaining amount of Rs.1,38,000/- was paid on 29.12.2009 which is after the filing of the present writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that the action on the part of petitioner would clearly show their bona fides and ready and willingness on their part to discharge the entire liability. Reference is made to the terms and condition contained in the allotment letter which states that the amount would be chargeable only once when the facilities as promised have been provided. Condition No.7 contained in the allotment letter(Annexure P-1) clearly provides that the possession of the plot shall be offered within 30 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter subject to the basic facilities i.e. water supply, sewerage and electricity are made available at the site. The relevant condition reads as under:- “The possession of the plot shall be offered to you within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment CWP No.19828 of 2009 (O & M) ::4:: letter provided that minimum basic facilities i.e. roads, water supply, sewerage and electrification are existing and if the said basic facilities are not existing, then after providing the said basic facilities.” The grievance of the petitioner is that without providing these facilities, the offer of possession was made on 29.06.2006 and thereafter, the notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.07.2009 asking him to explain the reason for non-depositing of the balance amount. The petitioner had therefore, approached the Court to impugn this show cause notice and have deposited the entire principal amount payable as already noted. The submission is that facilities have still not been provided and as such the respondents cannot justify the charging of interest for the delayed payment in view of the above condition of the allotment letter. In response, to specific query by the Court, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the water supply and sewerage connection has not been provided and as such the respondents cannot ask the petitioner to pay interest even if they had delayed in paying the instalments. This plea of the petitioner is contradicted by the respondents who have filed the reply. It is pointed out that though the allotment letter was issued to the petitioner on 03.11.2004 when he deposited the 25% of the auction amount but the possession was handed over on 29.06.2006 only when complete facilities had been provided. To substantiate this stand, the counsel for the respondent- Board would refer to two representations filed by the petitioners and CWP No.19828 of 2009 (O & M) ::5:: annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-6. The counsel points out that no mention is made in these representations about the non-provisioning of water supply and sewerage connection. The only grievance made in representation Annexure P-4 is that the facilities of a pucca platform in front of the booth for which the petitioner had given auction had not been provided. Even in Annexure P-6, the grievance made is that the original map has been changed and there is no space of 10ft. between Pacca Fad and Marketing Committee wall. In both the representations, the petitioners have not raised any grievance regarding water supply or sewerage connection. The counsel for the respondents have fairly submitted that the water supply to the area was provided but the individual water connection has not been made as booths have yet not been constructed. He further says that the sewerage facilities had been provided at the site. The perusal of the representations (Annexures P-4 and P-6) tend to, support the stand taken by the respondents. If these facilities had not been provided, the petitioners were bound to object to letter of possession which they accepted. Subsequently, they have represented but never pointed out that the water supply or sewerage connection had not been provided. I am thus inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that these facilities were provided and only then the possession was handed over on 29.06.2006. The petitioner have made payments intermittedly of the remaining balance amount to discharge the entire principal liability by 29.12.2009. The possession of the booths were handed over on CWP No.19828 of 2009 (O & M) ::6:: 29.06.2006. The petitioners have delayed the payment of instalments for a period from 29.06.2006 to 29.12.2009 and are liable to pay the interest on the delayed payment. The petitioners cannot escape the liability to pay the interest for this period. As per the allotment letter, the interest can be charged and so also the penal interest. Considering the fact that the petitioners have voluntarily discharged their liability and there is still some dispute in regard to certain facilities have been provided or not provided, it would be appropriate to direct that the respondent may charge simple interest only. The simple interest at the rate of 15% as provided in the allotment letter can be charged by the respondents and it is so ordered. Let the demand in this regard be issued to the respective petitioners for them to discharge this liability within a time bound period. The respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law if, any of the petitioners fails to pay the interest. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. (RANJIT SINGH) May 10, 2011 JUDGE Sukhpreet