CWP No. 6527 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6527 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.4.2010 The Manesar Industries Welfare Association ....Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. By way of instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-association has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned demand notice dated 18.6.2009 (Annexure P-13) issued by respondent No.2 whereby additional price/enhanced costs @ Rs.993.96 per square meter has been demanded from the constituent members/industrialists of the petitioner-association. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the demand notice dated 18.6.2009 (Annexure P-13) whereby additional price at the rate of Rs.993.96 per square meter has been demanded from the petitioner is not justified. He further states that the petitioner submitted a notice of demand dated 17.2.2010 (Annexure P-19) explaining therein CWP No. 6527 of 2010 -2- that the petitioner-association is not liable to meet the demand of enhanced compensation made vide the impugned notice dated 18.6.2009. He, however, prays that a direction may be issued to the respondents to take a decision on the notice of demand (Annexure P- 19) within a time bound frame and till the same is decided, the recovery should not be effected from the petitioner-association. He also states that the liberty be given to the petitioner-association to supplement the notice of demand by filing further details to establish that the amount is not payable by the petitioner-association. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and on perusal of the impugned demand notice, it appears that the matter can be disposed of at this stage, without calling upon the respondent-Corporation. The right of the Corporation to recover the additional price on account of additional financial burden suffered by it due to enhancement in compensation for the acquired land, cannot at all be questioned. At the same time, it is obligatory upon the respondent- Corporation to consider the issues raised by the petitioner-association vide its notice of demand (Annexure P-19) and redress its grievances by passing a speaking order. Suffice it to observe that mere stipulation in the impugned demand notice that the additional price @ Rs.993.96 per square meter is being demanded on account of enhancement of land compensation in view of the compensation awarded by the reference courts does not fulfil the requirement of the principles of natural justice. In my considered view, these factual issues need to be dealt with by the Corporation by way of a reasoned order before raising CWP No. 6527 of 2010 -3- the demand of the additional liability. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of at this stage with the following directions:- (i) it shall be open to the petitioner to supplement its notice of demand by filing further details showing that the said amount is not payable within a week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order; (ii) respondent No.2-Corporation shall consider the objections raised by the petitioner or their Association and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order as early as possible and preferably within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received; (iii) the petitioner or other industrialists shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard in a Representative capacity and if so required, they may be permitted to produce any material or proof in support of their claim that the demand raised by the Corporation towards enhanced price is excessive; (iv) till the entire exercise noticed above is undertaken by the Corporation, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the demand notice dated 18.6.2009 (Annexure P-13); (v) final order determining the petitioners' liability, CWP No. 6527 of 2010 -4- if any, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from the date of its passing.” April 8, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE