IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1378 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.8.2011 M/s D.P. Tower Private Limited -----Appellant Vs. Government of Haryana & others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rita Kohli, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge declining to interfere with order of the Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana, rejecting representation of the appellant-petitioner against order of cancellation of sale of hotel site. 2. Case of the appellant is that a hotel site was advertised for auction at Gurgaon on 27.3.1989. The conditions in the advertisement required 10% of the bid amount to be paid at the fall of hammer, 15% was to be deposited within 30 days and the remaining 75% was payable either in lump sum or in 9 half yearly instalments. The petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction held and allotment of the site was made in its favour on L.P.A. No.1378 of 2011 27.6.1989. One of the conditions for allotment was that 15% of the bid amount was to be paid within 30 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. Since the appellant defaulted in the payment, vide letter dated 25.10.1989, the appellant was put to notice that allotment will be cancelled unless the amount is paid within 10 days. This was followed by impugned order dated 22.12.1989, cancelling the auction and forfeiture of the amount deposited. Thereafter, from time to time, the petitioner represented for restoring the allotment though no legal remedy was taken for about 17 years. After 17 years, writ petition was filed against order dated 22.1.2007, rejecting representation. 3. Learned Single Judge did not find any merit in challenge to the cancellation of allotment. The writ petition was entertained only to consider fresh offer of the petitioner to pay higher price by way of settlement. Since the petitioner failed to stand by the offer, on which notice was issued , the writ petition was dismissed. The finding recorded by learned Single Judge is as under:- “The counsel for the petitioner then has made an attempt to advance submissions on merits to challenge the cancellation order passed in 1989. By doing so, the counsel apparently was making an attempt to ignore what all had transpired in this case ever since the date of filing of this petition. To mind the challenge on merits has been foreclosed on the very first day, when writ came up for hearing. Counsel could not have been ignorant about this position. The 2 L.P.A. No.1378 of 2011 attention of the counsel was accordingly drawn to the background but she would still insist on making submissions on merits to challenge cancellation order passed in 1989. This approach may not sound fair and the Court can expect fair and proper assistance from the counsel. The counsel perhaps got a bit blurred in responsibility towards the Court. Even before issuance of notice of motion, the petitioner was put to terms and was clearly given to understand that petitioner's claim could be considered if the petitioner was willing to pay the market price. It is on this basis and the willingness expressed by the petitioner that notice of motion was issued by the Division Bench. Insistence on making submission by ignoring these facts and making an attempt to make submissions on merits may not receive appreciative nod. The counsel are expected to be fair and assist the Court in administration of justice. Not only that, the counsel for the petitioner, by insisting on making submission on merits, was wishing to give go-bye to various transactions and proceedings that had taken place before the Court. The petitioner does not appear to be sincere in making any payment and has only been wasting the time of Court by moving one application or another or by raising one submission or another without achieving anything. The petitioner was required to deposit an amount, which it could not do in the year 1989. Having waited for over two decades, the petitioner had been successful to revive its claim by filing this writ petition. It is due to the generosity shown that the petitioner is still being heard, though it has failed at every step. The petitioner is noticed to be not sincere in making the present approach. So much 3 L.P.A. No.1378 of 2011 so that in between, the petitioner had filed L.P.A against the interim order passed by this Court on 24.9.2010. Notice in the LPA as well as application seeking condonation of delay was issued and the period of 3 months for depositing the amount at the rate of `80,000/- per Sq.Yard. was extended upto 22.1.2011, which was the date fixed in the LPA. This LPA was finally withdrawn on 4.4.2011 without making any effort to deposit any amount. The petitioner is, thus, not sincere at all in making any payment despite various opportunities. There is no case on merit, equity or otherwise in favour of the petitioner.” 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that now the appellant is willing to pay the amount which was offered to be paid before learned Single Judge. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. There is no reason shown against order of cancellation passed on 22.12.1989, on failure of the appellant to make payment as per terms of the allotment. Once the appellant failed to comply with the terms of the allotment, there was no ground to interfere with the order of cancellation passed in the year 1989 or in subsequent order rejecting the representation after 17 years. Mere fact that the learned Single Judge entertained the request to issue notice for settlement, does not create any right in favour of the appellant, particularly when the appellant failed to honour its statement on which notice was issued. If the appellant now 4 L.P.A. No.1378 of 2011 wishes a fresh allotment, it has to compete with all other eligible persons, as and when concerned authority may propose to issue any fresh allotment. 7. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE August 08, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 5