CWP No.8682 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8682 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.07.2010 **** Nura Ram . . . . Petitioner VS. Estate Officer UT Chandigarh and 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. RK Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 14.06.2006 (Annexure P3) passed by the Assistant Estate Officer, UT Chandigarh cancelling allotment of Booth No.77 Sector 22-D, Chandigarh as well as the orders dated 12.11.2008 & 18.03.2009 (Annexure P5 & P6, respectively), whereby, the appeal as well as the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the above-mentioned cancellation order, have been turned down. CWP No.8682 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). Shorn of the details, the petitioner is a vegetable vendor who has been selling fruits and vegetables in Sector 22-D, Rehri Market (the then Bajwara), Chandigarh. In terms of a Scheme formulated by the Chandigarh Administration for allotment of small booths to the fruits and vegetable vendors, constructed in Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, the petitioner applied and was allotted the subject booth vide allotment letter dated 30.09.1996 (Annexure P1). (3). The petitioner thereafter is said to have suffered huge losses in the business due to which he stopped selling fruits and vegetables for a while and the booth was locked. By that time the petitioner had already deposited 50% of the allotment cost but the balance amount could not be paid for want of sufficient means. It is alleged that the petitioner went to his native village in UP after locking the booth and when he came back after a short recess in order to re-start the business of fruits and vegetable selling, he was subjected with the impugned order dated 14.06.2006 (Annexure P3) cancelling his allotment on the ground of non-deposit of the balance allotment price. CWP No.8682 of 2009.doc - 3 – (4). Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court from time to time including the last order dated April 26, 2010, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lac within 10 days, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already deposited substantial part of the balance allotment consideration and a meagre amount of Rs.10,245/- remains to be deposited by him. (5). The respondents have filed their counter- reply/affidavit opposing this writ petition on the plea that the petitioner has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment and therefore, the balance payment cannot be accepted at this belated stage. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently urged that the payment of balance amount by the petitioner at this stage is in fact due to steep rise in the real estate prices in Chandigarh and the entire attempt lacks bona fide. (6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. (7). It is indeed not in dispute that after the allotment in the year 1996 the petitioner immediately deposited 50% of the allotment price within the stipulated period. Had the petitioner’s intention CWP No.8682 of 2009.doc - 4 – been to sit at fence and wait for the rise in prices, he would not have deposited beyond 25% of the initial amount and could seek extension on one pretext or the other. Similarly, had he intended to part with the possession of the booth he could do so instead of locking the same. The admitted fact that the booth remained locked for a long period, does give credence to the petitioner’s plea that it was due to financial constraints that he had to leave Chandigarh and go back to his native village. (8). The non-deposit of some of the due instalments on time is a curable defect in the sense that the respondents can always be suitably compensated with interest. The fact that the petitioner, in compliance of the orders passed by this Court from time to time, has deposited a substantial part of balance consideration is also a factor to be kept in view by a court of equity. (9). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 14.06.2006, 12.11.2008 & 18.03.2009 (Annexure P3, P5 & P6, respectively) are hereby quashed with the condition that besides the balance allotment price, the petitioner shall also be liable to pay simple interest @ 7% per annum on the delayed payment CWP No.8682 of 2009.doc - 5 – (s). The respondents shall calculate the arrears of interest and intimate the same to the petitioner at the earliest. The petitioner is directed to deposit the arrears of interest along with balance allotment consideration of Rs.10245/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of communication from the respondents. On doing so, the allotment of the subject booth shall stand regularized in favour of the petitioner. In case of default, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. (10). Ordered accordingly. (11). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 27.07.2010 vishal shonkar