IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.23262 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 23.12.2010 M/s Eveline International ....Petitioner(s) vs. Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Aman Bahri, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the order dated 3.9.2010 (Annexure P-28) passed by the Appellate Authority under the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 ( for short the Act) vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the provisions of Section 258 of the Act, the Commissioner was to communicate to the petitioner in the event of non-sanctioning of the plan. After removal of objection to the same, sanction was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 23.12.2002 and according to the sanction granted, the petitioner had proceeded to make the construction. It is the contention of the petitioner that the sanction was not subject to the deposit of the charges which have been levied upon it which ultimately was deposited by it as per the respondents in June, 2003. He contends that the deposit of the bank draft dated 25.4.2003 was prepared by the petitioner and sent to the office of the respondent-Municipal Corporation which was duly accepted and, therefore, even if the commencement of the construction is taken as April, 2003 the amount having been deposited in the month of April cannot be construed C.W.P.No.23262 of 2010 -2- to be in violation of the communication dated 23.12.2002 (Annexure P-5). The findings recorded by the Appellate Authority, thus, cannot be sustained. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. As per the admitted facts, the plan for sanctioning the building was submitted by the petitioner on 13.9.2002. The formalities regarding sanction of the building plan was completed by the respondents on 11.12.2002 but the building plan was not released to the petitioner as certain development charges and Malba charges amounting to ` 1,82,620/- were to be deposited by him. The said charges were not deposited and, therefore, the building plan was not released to the petitioner. Although the draft dated 25.4.2003 was prepared by the petitioner but the same, according to the pleadings, i.e. the reply filed by the respondents, was received in June, 2003 which shows that the deposit was ultimately made in June, 2003. No replication to the reply filed by the respondents has been filed by the petitioner, meaning thereby that the petitioner had accepted the fact that the amount was deposited in June, 2003. If that be so, it is an admitted fact that the construction started in April, 2003 and since the construction had commenced before the actual sanction of the building plan and its release, the demand of the petitioner, as challenged amounting to ` 75,000/- as composition fee by the notice impugned before the Appellate Authority was in consonance with law. The findings recorded by the Appellate Authority is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. Dismissed. December 23, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE