IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18047 of 2009 Date of decision: 26th November, 2009 M/s Trikuta Texknit … Petitioner Versus Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner was allotted a plot at Kundli, District Sonepat, Haryana. During the specified period, petitioner could not raise the construction. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court. This Court ordered that within four weeks, petitioner Firm will submit the building plans and after the requisite approval, it will complete the construction of building within six months. The order of the High Court was passed on 12th December, 2006. This order was made subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 1089 of 2008 (Annexure P-12). The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in a matter of enforcement of a contract, writ Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, considering the case of the petitioner, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that allottee had expressed willingness and is ready to accept allotment of plot at prevailing price as fixed by the Corporation. Accepting the offer, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “Before us, several allottees had categorically made a statement that they are ready and willing to pay the prevailing price as fixed by the appellant-Corporation. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion Civil Writ Petition No.18047 of 2009 that in the event, respondents offer the prevailing price as on the date of judgment of the High Court, the plot, in question, shall stand re-allotted and should be subject to the same terms and conditions. Such reallotment may be made even in cases where we have found the order of the High Court to be unsustainable. Respondents shall deposit the amount within six weeks from date. Appellant shall hand over the possession of the plot, in question, within four weeks thereafter. The highest executive of Appellant – Corporation shall see to it that the order of this Court is complied with. It is, however, made clear that in the event of failure on the part of the respondents concerned in making payment in terms of this order, it would be open to the appellant to take recourse to such action as is permissible in law.” The petitioner could not comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and deposit the amount within six weeks from the date of the order. Petitioner has given various explanations, i.e. late receipt of copy of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court; and non mentioning of the amount to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent Corporation. Since the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide Annexure P-12, had specifically mentioned that in the matters of contract, this Court cannot issue directions under Article 226 of Constitution of India, therefore, this Court shall refrain to examine the merits of plea raised to extend time, especially when regarding extension of time, petitioner had opted not to approach the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, no interference is warranted and the present writ petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 26, 2009 rps 2