CWP No. 17183 of 2004. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Misc. 7643 of 2011 in C.WP No. 17183 of 2004. [O&M] Date of Decision: 3rd August, 2011. M/s Hindustan Expo Petitioner through Mr. I.S.Ratta, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Yogesh Jain, 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] Civil Misc. No. 7643 of 2011. The prayer in this application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is for restoration of the writ petition at its original number. [2] Notice of this application was issued and in response thereto, the respondent Corporation has filed its reply. [3] Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the application is allowed to the extent that learned counsel for the parties have been heard on merits. [4] CM stands disposed of. CWP No. 17183 of 2004. [5] The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 08.10.2004 whereby the respondent – Punjab State Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited [PSIEC] has raised the demand of `24,85,063/- towards the additional cost of the plot measuring 5700 CWP No. 17183 of 2004. ::-2-:: square yards allotted to the petitioner Company in the Industrial Focal Point at Ludhiana. [6]. The petitioner Company was allotted Plot No. C-249 in Phase VIII, Industrial Focal Point, Ludhiana measuring 5000 square yards vide allotment letter dated 07.06.1995. Thereafter, on its request for the change of plot, the petitioner Company was allotted Plot No. C-246 in place of Plot No. C-249 on the same terms and conditions. The size of Plot No. C-246 at the spot exceeded 5000 square yards and it was found measuring 5700 square yards. The petitioner Company was obviously required to pay the additional cost for the increased area. The initial allotment was made at a tentative price of `350/- per square yard which was uniformly increased by the PSIEC for all the allottees to `596/- per square yard besides 10% cost for a corner plot. The Plot No. C-246 was statedly a corner plot, hence the petitioner Company was asked to deposit the cost @ `596/- per square yard plus 10% of the total cost. It further appears that the tentative price of the plot was further revised to `600/- per square yard in the year 1996 which was, however, set aside by this Court with a direction to the respondent Corporation to re-determine the 'actual cost' of the allotted plots after hearing the effected parties. The PSIEC re-determined the allotment price @ `596/- per square yard and the said price is said to have been challenged before this Court, though no ad-interim stay has been granted. [7]. Since the petitioner Company did not deposit the additional price at the rates referred to above, the PSIEC started charging penal interest and vide the impugned order, it has asked the CWP No. 17183 of 2004. ::-3-:: petitioner Company to deposit a sum of `9,67,307/- towards the additional cost of the excess area measuring 700 square yards besides revised cost of the entire plot measuring 5700 square yards. [8]. Having regard to the fact that the major component of the impugned demand included the 'penal interest', the interim stay earlier granted to the petitioner on 04.11.2004 was modified vide order dated 01.10.2010 and the PSIEC was directed to place on record the Statement of Accounts excluding the penal interest , with a further direction to the petitioner Company to deposit the due amount [other than the penal interest]. The petitioner failed to comply with the said order and sought time which was granted in the interest of justice vide order dated 17.02.2011, wherein it was made clear that in the event of non-deposit, the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution. [9]. It is an admitted fact that the afore-stated order has not been complied with by the petitioner leaving no option for this Court but to dismiss the writ petition vide the order dated 08.04.2011. [10]. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length and the record perused. There is no denial to the fact that Plot No. C-246 is measuring 5700 square yards. The petitioner Company though has half heartedly disputed it to be a 'corner plot', yet the petitioner is not absolved from paying the balance allotment price as per the agreed terms and conditions of allotment, more so when no stay has been granted to it by this Court in the writ petition challenging the revised rate of `596/- per square yard. The repeated opportunities given by this Court to deposit the due amount without penal interest have also not been availed by the petitioner. CWP No. 17183 of 2004. ::-4-:: [11]. The question as to whether or not the price determined by the PSIEC is fair and just and whether the allottee is liable to deposit the additional amount as demanded by the PSIEC, would be gone into in the pending cases. The rate of allotment determined by the PSIEC as on date is being uniformly charged from all the allottees. The petitioner is also liable to deposit the amount as per that rate and no exception can be made in this regard, particularly when the contentions sought to be raised on its behalf are nothing but an attempt to take the writ court in the realm of disputed question of facts. [12]. This Court had an occasion to examine the issue of determination of price of the industrial plots in Phase VIII, Focal Point, Ludhiana in a bunch of writ petitions, including CWP No. 2435 of 2010 [ M/s Luxmi Caste Forge v State of Punjab & Ors. ] which were disposed of on 11th February, 2010 with the following directions:- “[i] 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 produced; [ii] 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 or is not in consequence with the decision in Jeewan Parbhat Jain's case [supra]; [iii] the final demand order to be passed by the Corporation shall explicitly disclose the total liability incurred by the CWP No. 17183 of 2004. ::-5-:: Corporation and/or the method of proportionate distribution thereof amongst all the allottees; [iv] the issue regarding lack of the amenities for which the requisite cost is said to have been paid by the allottees shall also be specifically dealt with; [v] till the entire exercise noticed above is undertaken by the Corporation, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the demand notice dated 5.10.2009 [Annexure P-12]; [vi] final order determining the petitioners' liability, if any, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from the date of its passing”. [13]. In compliance thereto, the Managing Director of the PSIEC has passed the order dated 08.03.2011 holding that on re- calculation of the components like enhanced land cost etc., recoverable from the allottees, revised demand notices be issued to the concerned allottees. The petitioner would also be entitled to the benefit of revised demand, if any. [14]. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that the petitioner Company shall also be liable to pay the additional cost in terms of the order dated 08.03.2011 passed by the Managing Director of the PSIEC in compliance to the directions issued by this Court in the writ petition, referred to above. [15]. Disposed of. Dasti. August 03, 2011 ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE