C.W.P. No.1238 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1238 of 1992 Date of Decision : 02.05.2011 Parkash and another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Mahipal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) By this petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 08.01.1992 (Annexure P-5) whereby they have been called upon to deposit the amount of Rs.2,84,202/- in respect of mining contract dated 08.03.1978. The petitioners were partners in a company called M/s Nihal Singh & Co. who had obtained a contract by offering the highest bid i.e. Rs.3,88,000/- in respect of Plot No.II Sarai Khawja. Thereafter the contract was cancelled. The said cancellation was C.W.P. No.1238 of 1992 -2- challenged by the petitioners and ultimately the said dispute was resolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.365 of 1985 with the following order:- “Heard Mr. Jain for the petitioner & Mr. Mahajan for the State. Mr. Mahajan agrees that the amount of Rs.65,000/- has already been paid. Full credit thereof will be given in working out the claim of the State against the petitioner. We find that this Court has already set aside the order of the State Government for the forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs.97,000/- made by the appellants. This amount was always in the hands of the State. It is not entitled to claim interest on the basis that the said amount of Rs.57,000/- has not been paid and is not liable to be adjusted. The claim for interest by the State has, therefore, to be recalculated on the footing that Rs.97,000/- had been paid within time. Fresh notice raising the demand upon recalculation will be served within a fortnight. Payment be made within two months thereafter.” It is thereafter that the impugned recovery has been sought to be made from the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that firstly as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court notice had to be given to the petitioners within a period of fortnight but no notice was given C.W.P. No.1238 of 1992 -3- within the said period. The second contention is that it was the partner’s firm which had 17 partners but the respondents had singled out only 3 petitioners for sending notices. The third argument raised is that interest has been charged @ 15% p.a. whereas as per the contract it has to be charged @ 12% p.a. Learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that after the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the petitioners were sent notice Annexure R-1. Further that the interest has been charged @ 12% and not @ 15%. She further states that once the partnership firm is liable the money can be recovered from any of the partners who would have of course right of claim from other partners on pro- rata basis. In my considered opinion, the argument of learned Deputy Advocate General must prevail. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the interest would be charged only @ 12% p.a. and the petitioners would be at liberty to claim the said amount from the remaining partners on pro-rata basis. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 02, 2011 JUDGE ashish