CWP No.3668 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.3668 of 2009 Date of decision May 4, 2010 Jaspal Singh ....... Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I) Punjab, Mini Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. BPS Virk , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Ms. J. K. Gurna, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition challenges the order of resumption made by the respondents for the non-payment of the balance of amount payable for allotment of the booth. 2. It is the admitted case that the petitioner had been allotted booth for Rs.33,000/- on 12.11.1986 and 25% of the same namely Rs.8250/- was deposited on the spot. The remaining amount of 75% was to be deposited in six monthly installments along with 6% interest and schedule regarding payment had been issued. It appears that the petitioner had paid Rs.27,349/- up to 11.12.1989 which included the interest component and fell into arrears for the balance . 3. The contract stipulates a payment of 10% penalty for outstanding amounts apart from 6% interest which he was liable to pay CWP No.3668 of 2009 2 on outstanding dues. The petitioner has given memo of calculation which includes Rs. 19,360/- up to May, 2010. This is in response to the memo of calculation that this Court had already directed the petitioner to give. Learned counsel for the respondent is unable to point out any serious mistake in the memo of calculation but would contend that the petitioner shall be liable to pay penalty as well as interest and the amount has not been properly calculated. 4. On a proper reckoning, I find that Rs. 20,468/- remains balance and I round it off to Rs.21,000/-. The said amount shall also be paid within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and on such payment, the allotment shall stand regularized. The impugned orders are set aside. If the payment, as directed, is not made, the order already passed shall stand restored and the petitioner shall be ejected in the process known to law. 5. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 4, 2010 archana