CWP No. 2899 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2899 of 2010 Date of decision February 18 , 2010 Jagdish Dua and others ....... Petitioners Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, Sector 6, Panchkula and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioners seeks for grant of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount which had been allegedly wrongly charged by HUDA. The claim of the petitioner is on the basis that HUDA had collected penal interest at 18% which they were not entitled to claim but the petitioners had made the payment to spare themselves of being visited with orders of resumption. Ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Roochira Ceramics Vs. Haryana Urban Devlopment Authority 2001 (2) RCR (Civil) 617 held that penal interest if at all could be charged only at 10% and not at 18%. The petitioner had demanded the refund of excess interest calculated by HUDA. It transpired that HUDA was liable to refund two sets of amounts for Booth Nos. 99 and 100 in Sector 15-A, Part- II. Viz., Rs.3,83,129/- and Rs.3,45,045/-. They have been also refunded by HUDA. The claim of the petitioner, however, is that the amounts which had been calculated in excess had been retained by HUDA and therefore, the said excess amount shall also be charged with interest. The mere refund of the excess amounts would not be proper. Upon a query whether the claim CWP No. 2899 of 2010 2 by the petitioners would not amount to asking for interest on interest, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would not be so reckoned because the amount which was calculated by HUDA was not an amount which could have been lawfully calculated and therefore the excess amount ought to be treated as wrongfully retained and hence interest would be payable. 2. I do not think any such distinction is possible for if the amount refunded should be identified as an excess interest calculated, the refund made of the said amount itself is adequate relief for the petitioners. A further demand of 18% interest on the said sum is not justified and the writ petition filed on such a basis is liable for dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 18, 2009 archana