IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 7831 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 5th July, 2010. Rattan Singh & Anr. Petitioners through Mr. M.R.Verma, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate with Ms. Sheenu Sura, Advocate. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 18.03.2008 [Annexure P-5] passed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board whereby they have been directed to pay the extension fee from the date of service of the notice, i.e., 29.03.2000 in respect of Plot No. 27 situated in Grain Market, Darshul Kalan, District Fatehabad [Haryana], purchased by them in an open auction held on 21.1.1982. There is indeed no dispute that in view of the decision dated 27.8.2003 by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 10618 of 2001 [Vijay Kumar and Ors. V State of Haryana & Ors.] , the respondents are entitled to charge extension fee with effect from the date of service of notice upon the allottee calling upon him to raise construction and/or to pay extension fee. The controversy in the present case is as to what is the actual date of service of notice on the petitioners? The original records produced by the respondents reveal that four show cause notices were sent to the petitioners by registered post on 29.3.2000, 8.3.2001, 17.8.2001 and 11.3.2003. While the Chief Administrator has now directed the petitioners to pay extension fee w.e.f. 29.3.2000, i.e., the date of issuance of the first notice, the petitioners' contention is that even as per the stand taken by the respondents, two notices were never served upon them as the same were sent on a wrong address and that the extension fee can at the most, be charged from the date of the last notice, i.e., 11.3.2003. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the liability of the petitioners to pay the extension fee from the date when the notice is actually received by them is hardly in dispute, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Executive Officer, Market Committee, Darshul to hold a fact finding inquiry including a report from the postal authorities to find out as to out of the four notices sent to the petitioners, which was the first one received by them. The date of service of that notice shall determine the liability of the petitioners to pay the extension fee. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. Dasti. July 05, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE