CWP No.18775 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18775 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.09.2010 **** Mohinder Partap Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . . 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. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the cancellation order dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure P11) whereby allotment of HIG Flat-1624-Phase-9, at SAS Nagar, Mohali, has been cancelled. (2). It appears that besides approaching this Court against the cancellation of allotment, the petitioner also filed an appeal against the said order which has since been allowed vide order dated 13.03.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Administrator GMADA Mohali and the allotment of HIG House No.1624 at Phase IX, Mohali has been restored in favour of the petitioner. CWP No.18775 of 2009.doc - 2 – (3). The only question which now survives for consideration is as to whether or not the petitioner is liable to pay penal interest on the delayed payment? (4). It may be mentioned here that previously also the petitioner had filed CWP No.17705 of 1995 for directing the respondent-authorities not to charge increased price of the allotted house. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court in agreed terms vide order dated October 20, 2009 (Annexure P9) which reads as follows:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx “Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure P-4 order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.6962 of 1992 titled as ‘Harjit Singh and others v. Punjab Housing Development Board’ decided on 17th March, 2009 and has contended that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is clearly covered by the ratio of Harjit Singh’s case (supra). The Estate Officer (H) GMADA, PUDA Complex, Sector 62, Mohali, Punjab has filed an affidavit and has averred as under: “6. That in the light of facts and circumstances mentioned above it is clear that the present case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgement dated 17.03.2009 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.6962 of 1992. Therefore, the present case may also be CWP No.18775 of 2009.doc - 3 – disposed of under the same terms and conditions.” In view of the agreement between the parties, present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Harjit Singh’s case (supra). Sd/- (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 20, 2009” (5). In CWP No.6962 of 1992 (Harjit Singh & Ors. v. Punjab Housing Development Board) decided on 17.03.2009 (Annexure P5) referred to in the above reproduced order, this Court had issued the following directions:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx “The petitioners shall be liable to pay the additional amount, so worked out, along with simple interest @ 10% per annum from the due date within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such notice, failing which the respondents shall also be entitled to charge penalty from the petitioner. However, it is directed that in case the petitioners pay the enhanced/additional amount along with interest as directed above within the stipulated period, in that event no penalty or penal interest shall be imposed even for the purposes of execution of the conveyance deeds in terms of the notification dated 2.3.2009 which has been recently issued during the pendency of these writ petitions. Similarly, if any of the petitioners has already made the payments, no interest shall be recoverable from him.” xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx CWP No.18775 of 2009.doc - 4 – (6). The parties being ad-idem that the petitioner’s claim is covered by the decision of this Court in Harjit Singh’s case (supra), the petitioner would be liable to pay interest on the delayed payments w.e.f. 19.02.1991 onwards in the same terms as contained in the above- reproduced order. (7). The writ petition is accordingly allowed with a direction to the respondents that in case the petitioner has been charged interest more than what has been permitted by this Court vide order dated 17.03.2009 passed in Harjit Singh’s case (supra), such excess amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 10.09.2010 vishal shonkar