CWP No.5669 of 2002 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5669 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: February 3, 2009. Satinder Pal Singh & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Sukhjinder Singh Behl, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri Saurabh Goel, Advocate, for Shri Govind Goel, Advocate, for respondent(s) No.1 & 2. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to provide basic amenities at the allotted site and to re-schedule the payment of balance installments. During the pendency of this writ petition, the grievance of petitioner No.2 has already been redressed and as such this writ petition survives qua petitioner No.1 only. The petitioner is allottee of SCF site No.121-C, Phase III-B-II, CWP No.5669 of 2002 -: 2 :- SAS Nagar, Mohali. The subject site was purchased by the petitioner in an open auction held on 16.3.2001. The petitioner was required to make payment of the sale price by way of installments as per the schedule incorporated in the allotment letter. The petitioner's grievance is that since the basic amenities like electricity, sewerage, water supply, parking, metaled roads etc. were not being provided by the respondents, he was unable to construct and utilize the allotted site for commercial purposes. The petitioner accordingly has sought a direction to provide the basic amenities as well as re-scheduling of the payment of installments. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of this writ petition all the basic amenities including sewerage facilities have been provided by the end of December, 2008. The only question which survives for consideration, therefore, is as to whether or not the respondents are entitled to impose interest, penal interest and penalty for the delay in payment of the installments. The controversy has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6929 of 2007 (Raghu Nath Gupta and others V. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and another) filed by the allottees of SCF No.134 and decided on 5.11.2008 in the following terms :- “Mr. Gurminder Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to persuade us to take a view contrary to the one taken by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and accordingly relief is liable to be granted to the petitioners in the instant case. Therefore, we allow the writ petition to the limited extent that the petitioners shall be granted the relief CWP No.5669 of 2002 -: 3 :- in imposition of interest, penal interest and penalty for the period commencing from 1.6.2001 to 31.12.2002. They shall, however, be liable to pay interest, penal interest and penalty after 1.1.2003 on account of delayed payment of instalments. The respondents shall re-calculate the amount payable by the petitioners in the light of the aforementioned direction. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The remaining payment shall be made by the petitioners within one month thereafter.” For the reasons given by this Court in the above mentioned order, and the petitioner being a similarly situated allottee, this writ petition also stands disposed of in the same terms as Raghu Nath Gupta's case (supra). The parties shall accordingly settle their respective claims in terms of the above reproduced directions. February 3, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge