CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8781 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 19, 2011 Raj Pal .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Praveen Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Patter, DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr.Jagdeep Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 & 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos.8781 of 2010 (Raj Pal Vs. State of Haryana & others) and 779 of 2011 (Munish Kharbanda Vs. State of Haryana & others). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.8781 of 2010. Both the petitioners have a grievance against the respondents for not issuing `No Objection Certificate' in respect of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8781 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: their respective Booths allotted in New Extension Grain Market, Ladwa, which were allotted on 27.5.1999. The petitioners also seek a writ of prohibition for restraining the respondents from claiming interest on the instalments on the basis of direction contained in order dated 9.9.2003 (Annexure P-4) in Civil Writ Petition No.9120 of 2002. Noticing in brief, the facts are that the petitioner was allotted a plot in auction held on 30.7.1998 for a sum of `3,45,000/-. He deposited `86,250/- as earnest money. He was required to pay the balance amount in 6 instalments, as per the schedule given in the allotment letter. The respondents, however, failed to develop the market as per the promise made in the advertisement, Annexure P-2. It is stated that basic amenities like sewerage, platform, portable water, street light etc. have not been provided. Various allottees thereafter served a legal notice on 22.3.2002 and claimed that the respondents are not entitled to seek payment of instalments and interest thereon till the basic amenities are provided. Various allottees thereafter filed a joint Civil Writ Petition No.9120 of 2002 titled (Gian Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others), which was disposed of on 9.9.2003 with the following directions:- “i) There is the petitioners, who have not paid full price of the shops/booth allotted to them shall pay the balance price in six equated monthly installments. The first installment of the balance price shall be paid by 30.09.2003. The remaining installments shall be paid on or before the last day of the succeeding month. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8781 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: ii) Respondents No.2 and 3 shall ensure the amenities, like sewerage and water pipeline are made available in the new Market within a period of six months from today. iii) Till the aforementioned basic amenities are made available, the respondents shall not charge interest on the balance price payable by the petitioners.” The petitioner deposited the whole balance amount of `2,58,750/- in one go and receipt in this regard No.393 dated 12.11.2003 was issued to him. The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.779 of 2010 cleared all the payment by October 2003. When the petitioners approached the respondents for issuing NOC on 10.5.2010, they have refused to grant the same on the ground that the petitioners are required to pay interest as they are not covered by order dated 9.9.2003, as they were not party in the said writ petition. The petitioners have accordingly filed the present writ petitions to impugn this action of the respondents. In the reply filed, the respondents would plead that the writ petitions are untenable, incompetent and misconceived. It is stated that no fundamental or legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. The payment of the petitioner, as stated in the petition, is conceded but it is pointed out that they were required to pay the balance 75% bid amount/price of plot without interest within 30 days from the issue of allotment letter or in 6 half yearly instalments with 15% interest. It is stated that rights of the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Any breach of these CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8781 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: conditions would make the petitioners liable to pay interest and penal interest. It is stated that the petitioners were not a party to Civil Writ Petition No.9120 of 2002 and hence, can not claim benefit as per the directions and these directions would not be binding to regulate the rights of the petitioner. The short question that would arise for consideration is whether the petitioner can seek advantage of the directions contained in Gian Singh's case (supra). This Court had permitted the petitioner in the said writ petition to pay the balance amount by 30.9.2003 and remaining instalments were to be paid on or before last day of the succeeding month. The respondents were directed to ensure amenities within a period of six months from the date of the order i.e. 9.9.2003. Till the basic amenities were made available, the respondents were not to charge interest on the balance price payable by the petitioner. The petitioners have cleared the entire payment in November 2003 and October 2003 respectively. The period of six months was to expire on 9.3.2004. Thus, the petitioners paid instalment within the time provided by this Court, though they were not party in the said writ petition. The real issue is regarding the right of the respondents to charge interest till they had provided the basic amenities. Concededly, the respondents have not provided the complete amenities and so this Court had passed an order in Gian Singh's case (supra). It would be rather unfair to hold that some person would not be made to pay interest but those like the petitioners would CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8781 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: have to pay interest, though they had made the payment even without the amenities being provided by the respondents. Merely because the petitioners had not filed the petition but had deposited the amount of complete instalments, without waiting for amenities, would be good enough reason to un-enable the respondents to claim interest. The petitioners can not be fastened with the liability to pay interest, which is linked with the amenities as per terms of the allotment letter. It is also not the case of the respondents that any interest is chargeable, for which any claim was made from the petitioners. Rather, the petitioners learnt about the same, when they sought issuance of NOC. In my view, it will not be fair to require the petitioner to pay interest on the amount, when they had cleared the dues in the year 2003. The writ petitions, therefore, are allowed. Direction is issued to the respondents to issue No Objection Certificate to the petitioners. The right of the respondents to claim interest on the amount, which has been paid long ago by the petitioners is not fair and it is directed that the respondents would not charge interest from the petitioners. May 19, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE