CWP No.11242 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.11242 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.06.2010 **** Dr. Suresh Kumar Bansal . . . . Petitioner VS. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. . . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. BS Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 07.01.2008 (Annexure P4), whereby, his representation for the grant of proportionate relief towards interest and penalty has been turned down by the respondents and he has been advised to deposit a sum of Rs.9,31,261/-. (2). Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner purchased SCO No.85, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh in an open auction conducted by the respondents on 11th December, 1998 for a sum of Rs.47,10,000/-. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated CWP No.11242 of 2010.doc - 2 – 04.02.1999, the auction price was payable in four equated annual instalments of Rs.11,77,500/- each along with interest and the lease money. The petitioner is said to have deposited the due instalments but not on time. He was, therefore, asked and he deposited a sum of Rs.8,29,697/- towards interest on the delayed instalments which he allegedly deposited under protest. (3). The petitioner sought the refund of the above- mentioned interest amount by way of CWP No.7171 of 2001 on the plea that the respondents have failed to provide basic amenities to the allotted site and as such he was not liable to pay the interest on the delayed instalments. The petitioner’s writ petition was adjourned sine die to await the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and others vs. M/s. Shantikunj Investment Private Ltd.(Civil Appeal No.1342 of 2006). (4). The petitioner’s writ petition was later on dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.07.2002 (Annexure P2) after observing that the Division Bench judgement in Shanti Kunj’s case (supra) relied upon by the petitioner was subsequently CWP No.11242 of 2010.doc - 3 – considered by another Division Bench in the case of M/s. DLG Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Adviser to the Administrator, Chandigarh Administration in CWP No.13695 of 2002 and a different view was taken. The Division Bench being in agreement with the subsequent Division Bench decision in M/s. DLG Builders’ case (supra), dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition though it kept the question of payment of penalty open to be decided by the concerned authorities in the facts and circumstances of the case. (5). The Division Bench’s view in M/s. DLG Builders’ case (supra) has been later on approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UT Chandigarh Administration and another vs. Amarjeet Singh and others (2009) 4 SCC 660 holding that there was no obligation on the part of the Chandigarh Administration to provide amenities to the allottees of the plots sold/leased by public auction. (6). Though the law stood settled against the petitioner, he still took a chance and filed another CWP No.11591 of 2008 before this Court which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to place on record the Division Bench decision dated 10.07.2002, CWP No.11242 of 2010.doc - 4 – whereby, his first writ petition No.7171 of 2001 was dismissed. (7). The petitioner has now filed this third writ petition. (8). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the record. The solitary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he was not liable to pay any additional or penal interest on the delayed installments as the Chandigarh Administration failed to provide basic amenities to the site allotted to him in public auction. (9). Somewhat similar plea was taken by the allottees before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amarjeet Singh’s case (supra) and the same has been turned down. That being so, no case to order the refund of the interest amount charged from the petitioner is made out. (10). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 30.06.2010 vishal shonkar