CWP No.15242 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15242 of 2007 Date of decision: February 12, 2009. Amarjeet Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ...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: S/Shri Jatin Salwan and R.D. Bawa, Advocates for the petitioners. Shri Ajneesh Raj Takkar, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This order shall dispose of CWP No.15242 of 2007 and CWP Nos.5299, 5727, 5765 and 5837 of 2008 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No.15242 of 2007. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11/13.9.2007 (Annexure P/15) asking him to pay the balance installments within 10 days failing which he has been threatened with resumption of the site. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to develop the area by CWP No.15242 of 2007 -: 2 :- providing basic amenities so as to enable him to raise the construction. The petitioner also wants the dispute between him and the Corporation to be referred to an arbitrator in terms of Clause 21 of the Allotment letter. The petitioner was the highest bidder in an open auction held on 26.10.2005 for allotment of SCO/SCF No.16 in the Industrial Area near Partap Chowk, Ludhiana for a sale consideration of Rs.43,20,000/-. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 12.4.2006 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner, after payment of 25% of the bid amount, was liable to pay the remaining 75% of the cost as per the schedule of payment of five half-yearly equated installments and interest thereupon as provided in Clause 2 of the allotment letter. Clauses 9 and 10 of the allotment letter require the petitioner to construct the building after getting the plans approved within a period of three years of the allotment. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the sites in question were allotted in a totally undeveloped area without any basic amenities like metaled road, sewerage, water supply and electricity, etc. It is the petitioner's grievance that some of them had applied for the approval of the building plans but no such approval was accorded for want of the basic infrastructure due to which they have not been able to raise construction and utilize the allotted sites for commercial purposes. As regards the basic amenities, the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation was asked to file an affidavit as to whether or not the basic amenities have been provided. In deference thereto, an additional affidavit dated 10.2.2009 has been placed on record which indicates that the incomplete metaled roads or sewerage facilities have been provided at the spot since 15.4.2008. So far as the water supply is concerned, Learned CWP No.15242 of 2007 -: 3 :- Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation submits that as and when the petitioner wants, the water connection would be provided to him within one week. Similarly, the electricity connections are to be obtained by the petitioners from the Punjab State Electricity Board. Some photographs have also been shown during the course of hearing. It, thus, transpires that after April 2008, some of the basic amenities, to enable the petitioners to raise construction, have been provided. The petitioner submits that the Corporation itself has resolved vide resolution No.228 dated 8.2.2005 that wherever the development works are incomplete, the interest shall be charged from the allottees only from the date of completion of the development works, therefore, the respondents ought to have re-scheduled the payment of installments without insisting for payment of interest/penal interest till April, 2008. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation, on the other hand, submits that the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of allotment and the payment of interest does not depend upon the availability of basic amenities. According to him, the interest is being charged on account of the fact that the payments are being made in installments, instead of lump-sum payment of the entire auction price without any interest within 60 days of the allotment. He also denies the allegation that the building plans were not sanctioned on account of the non-availability of basic amenities, as according to him, two allottees have already raised construction at the site. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the CWP No.15242 of 2007 -: 4 :- respondent-Corporation cannot recover any penal interest from the petitioner upto April 2008 when most of the basic amenities have been provided. As regards the interest component, there appears to be some substance in the petitioner's contention that his building plans were not sanctioned for want of basic amenities as is evident from the communication dated 15.11.2006 (Annexure P-3) on record to that effect. Besides this, the resolution No.228 dated 8.2.2005 also gives some strength to the petitioner's claim to exempt him from payment of interest, maybe partly, till the basic amenities were completed in April 2008. Keeping in view the attending circumstances referred to above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner's claim regarding exemption from the payment of interest, maybe partly, deserves to be considered sympathetically by the respondent-Corporation in the light of its own resolution and the circumstances noticed above. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part. It is directed that while no penal interest shall be leviable on the petitioner till April 2008, the claim regarding exemption, may be partly, of the interest on the five half yearly equated installments which became due till 11.4.2008, shall be considered sympathetically and in the light of the Corporation's resolution within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner, however, shall be liable to pay interest after 15.4.2008 as per the agreed terms and conditions. Disposed of. February 12, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge