CWP No.14380 of 1989 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14380 of 1989 Date of decision: March 18, 2009. Dalip Singh Loomba & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. Punjab Housing Development Board ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate with S/Shri Shailendra Sharma & H.R. Bansal, Advocates for the petitioners. None for respondent. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.14380, 14211, 16387 and 6051 of 1989, CWP Nos. 662, 9756, 11371 and 13169 of 1990 and 5262 and 14305 of 1991, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. The petitioners are allottees of the HIG houses constructed by the Punjab Housing Development Board at Garha Road, Jalandhar under a scheme floated in the year 1980 and known as “Partial Self-Financing Scheme (HIG), Garha Road, Jalandhar”. It is, however, not in dispute that CWP No.14380 of 1989 -: 2 :- in the allotment letters dated 2.12.1987 (Annexure P-1), it was specifically stipulated that the flats were being allotted at a tentative price which was subject to final determination. Thereafter, the petitioners were served with additional demand notices dated 19.10.1989. Since no details were furnished to the petitioners as to how the final price of the flats constructed under the partially self-financed scheme was worked out, they have approached this Court. While issuing notice to the respondents, recovery against the petitioners were stayed. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit, inter-alia, explaining that the price finally determined after completion of the houses has been worked out as follows:- Cost of land Base Cost Rs. 13,455.60 Admn. Charges Rs. 268.70 Interest Rs.16966.70 Total + Rs.30671.10 (The interest on expenditure on development and construction has been levied from 1.1.86 to30.9.89 @ 6.75% p.a. While working out the saleable cost.) Cost of Development Bare cost Rs.16833.35 Admn. Charges @ 10% Rs. 1683.30 Interest Rs. 5283.35 Total = Rs.23,800.00 Cost of Construction Bare cost Rs.168783.35 Admn. Charges @ 10% Rs. 16878.35 Interest Rs. 36549.30 Total = Rs.222211.00 Bank charges Rs.1087.50 Maintenance cost on account of maintenance of external roads etc. Rs.5684.00 CWP No.14380 of 1989 -: 3 :- Profit @ 15% Rs.41133.25 Total = Rs.324586.85 Learned Counsel for the petitioners has been heard and the pleadings have been perused. In reference to the stand taken by the respondents, it is urged on behalf of the petitioners that since the cost of the land had already been paid by them, there was no occasion for the respondents to raise any additional demand on that count. Similarly, they have also questioned the total amount calculated by the respondents under different sub-heads and have pointed out that the interest has been charged at the rate of 21% per annum. After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions noticed above, it appears that these cases are an off-shoot of the failure of the respondents to provide even bare information explaining as to how the final price has been worked out. The written statement also does not disclose as to how much land was acquired or utilized for construction or for providing essential amenities. Similarly, the details of the construction cost have also not been furnished. So is the fate of the interest component. In these circumstances when neither the respondents are unrepresented nor their records produced, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to furnish the statement of accounts to the petitioners broadly explaining as to how the final cost of the flats has been worked out. On receipt thereof, the petitioners shall be at liberty to deposit the demanded amount within a period of two months along with simple interest @ 10% per annum from the due date and in that event no penal interest or penalty shall be imposed on them. However, if the petitioners fail to deposit the amount within the CWP No.14380 of 1989 -: 4 :- stipulated period, the respondents shall be at liberty to charge penal interest and/or impose penalty on them. Needless to say that if the petitioners have already made payments under a particular sub-head, namely, the cost of the land or the interest, the said amount shall be proportionately adjusted. Disposed of. March 18, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge