Regular Second Appeal No.3104 of 2009 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 11, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No.3104 of 2009 (O & M ) Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ….Appellants Versus Sat Pal through his attorney Sudhir Kumar ..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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.Raman Gaur, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Shailendar Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. MOHINDER PAL, J. Plaintiff-respondent Sat Pal through his attorney Sudhir Kumar Jain filed the instant suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 1.4.2002 communicated to the plaintiff vide memo Regular Second Appeal No.3104 of 2009 (O & M ) No.4494 dated 1.4.2002 passed by the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short `HUDA’), Panchkula, exercising the powers of Chief Administrator, HUDA, the order dated 11.10.2000 passed by Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula and the notice No.16170 dated 1.8.2000 issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, were illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction and the same were liable to be set aside with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from resuming and taking possession of Booth No.88, Sector 15, Panchkula, from the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2008. On appeal by the plaintiff- respondent, the lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 29.4.2009. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court, the appellants-defendants have filed this Regular Second Appeal. I have heard Mr.Raman Gaur, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Shailendar Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent and have gone through the records of the case. The plaintiff having given highest bid of Rs.2,00,000/- and having deposited 10 per cent of the bid amount of Rs.20,000/- was issued allotment letter in respect of Booth No.88, Sector 15, Panchkula on 12.1.1987. The plaintiff thereafter let out the said Booth to Sudhir Kumar Jain, through whom the instant suit had been filed by the plaintiff as his (plaintiff’s) General Attorney. The plaintiff/allottee failed to pay the price of allotted Booth to HUDA as per the terms and conditions of allotment fixed by it (HUDA) in the allotment letter. Several notices were issued to the plaintiff to Regular Second Appeal No.3104 of 2009 (O & M ) make payment of the defaulted amount. However, he failed to do so. Ultimately, Commercial Booth No.88, Sector 15, Panchkula, allotted to the plaintiff, was resumed by HUDA under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short `the Act’). The question requiring determination before this Court is as to whether the power to resume the Booth in question had been validly and properly exercised by the competent authority or not. Built up Booth No.88, Sector 15, Panchkula, was allotted to the plaintiff-respondent vide letter dated 12.1.1987 and the terms and conditions of allotment were mentioned therein. As mentioned above, 10 per cent amount of the highest bid of the Booth i.e Rs.20,000/-, the highest bid being of Rs.2,00,000/- given by the plaintiff, was deposited by the plaintiff-respondent at the spot at the fall of hammer, as per one of the terms of allotment of the Booth in question. As per condition No.4 of the allotment letter, 15 per cent amount of the Booth, in order to complete 25 per cent of the price of the site, was to be paid by the plaintiff within 30 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter, or in 10 half yearly instalments along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum as per condition No.5 of the allotment letter. In case the instalment was not paid by the 10th of the month following the month it fell due, the HUDA had the power to proceed in accordance with law to take action for imposition of penalty and resumption of the Booth in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. The plaintiff failed to make payment as per the schedule of payments. Various show cause notices were issued to the plaintiff. The resumption order was ultimately passed in this case on 14.5.1999 i.e more than twelve years of the allotment of Booth in question to the plaintiff. The appeal Regular Second Appeal No.3104 of 2009 (O & M ) preferred by the plaintiff against the resumption order was dismissed by the competent authority i.e Administrator HUDA exercising the powers of Chief Administrator, HUDA. At the time of resumption of the Booth, a sum of Rs.8,64,496/- was outstanding against the plaintiff. No doubt, as admitted by Ravinder Khanna (D.W.1), the plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs.2,71,000/- by 29.1.2002 and the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 21.2.2002, but no permission was taken from the HUDA for deposit of this amount. Apparently, it was not open for the plaintiff to deposit any amount after fifteen years of the allotment of the Booth without any prior sanction from the HUDA authorities. As noticed above, the appellant had purchased the Booth in question in auction and failed to comply with the terms and condition of the allotment order. Admittedly, there was no illegality in the holding of the auction. Despite notices issued to the plaintiff- respondent calling upon to make payment of the defaulted amount, he failed to make payment within the stipulated period. The facts and circumstances show that a great deal of indulgence was shown by the HUDA authorities to the plaintiff to make payment, but the needful was not done by him (plaintiff). The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has argued that the HUDA could not demand interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum and as the plaintiff was insisting to pay the balance amount with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum, the resumption order should not have been passed and the balance amount ought to have been accepted by the HUDA with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. However, this argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is not of any help to the plaintiff in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and Regular Second Appeal No.3104 of 2009 (O & M ) others Vs. Vipin Kumar Jain (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.12968/2006 and connected appeals) decided on 20.9.2007, wherein it has been held that auction is a price discovery mechanism which falls in the contractual realm. Auction is basically an exercise in raising revenues for the Government. When the price is not paid within time it results in loss of revenue to the State. Time is the essence of the contract in matters concerning auction. Property prices rise by the day and if within the stipulated period contractual obligations are not fulfilled then in that event the State suffer losses which cannot be compensated in terms of interest or penalty after four years. Ultimately auction is an exercise for detecting or discovering the price prevalent in the particular area in a year and if time overruns are to be allowed on flimsy excuses for not paying the money in time then the entire exercise would fail. In view of the above, the power to resume the Booth in question had been validly and properly exercised by the competent authority and the lower appellate Court should not have interfered in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court are set aside and that of the trial Court are restored. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Dated: February 11, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE