CWP No.8239 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8239 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.09.2010 **** Shri Radha Madhav Sat Sang Sabha . . . . Petitioner VS. UT of Chandigarh & 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. AK Garg, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. KK Gupta, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is a registered Society to whom the Chandigarh Administration has allotted a religious site for construction of Sat Sang Bhawan and a temple. The petitioner-Society raised the construction but no sewerage connection having been released by the respondents it has approached this Court, also seeking a further direction for not charging the extension fee from it. (2). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit pointing out that the construction raised by the CWP No.8239 of 2009.doc - 2 – petitioner-Society was not as per the originally sanctioned building plans. (3). Taking into consideration the divergent stand taken by the parties, this Court passed the following order on May 13, 2010:- “Learned counsel for the respondent states that there has been some deviations from the building plans, which have been submitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not received any such notice and there is no deviation. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he will secure appropriate instructions. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent also states that a fresh inspection will be done in the presence of the petitioner and if the building is as per the sanctioned plan/revised sanctioned plan, the respondents will also issue the sewerage connection. However, if there is any deviation, the petitioner cannot obtain any connection without submitting revised building plan or to get the connection in the building made to conform to the plan already submitted.” (4). Thereafter, following order was passed on 18.08.2010:- “It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no fresh inspection has been carried out by the respondents in terms of the order dated May 13, 2010. CWP No.8239 of 2009.doc - 3 – In the interest of justice and as a last opportunity respondent No.2 is directed to carry out fresh inspection, if so required, before the next date of hearing and submit a report failing which it shall be presumed that the respondents are fully satisfied that the building raised by the petitioner is as per the sanctioned/revised sanctioned plan. It is made clear that in case no inspection is carried out before the adjourned date, there shall be a direction to release sewerage connection of the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.” (5). It is not in dispute that meanwhile the petitioner had submitted the revised building plans and on inspection the construction raised by the petitioner-Society has been found in accordance with the revised plans which have been duly sanctioned. (6). Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the later developments the respondents have no objection against the release of sewerage connection provided that the petitioner-Society deposits the extension fee of `2,09,030/- w.e.f. 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 as per the Rules. (7). The extension fee has been demanded on the plea that the construction has been completed by the petitioner in September, 2007 whereas the CWP No.8239 of 2009.doc - 4 – extension fee deposited by it is upto 31st March, 2007 only. (8). I have heard learned counsel for the parties in this regard and perused the records. (9). In my considered view the respondents are justified in demanding the extension fee upto 31st March, 2008 for the admitted reason that the petitioner could not complete the construction before 31st March, 2007. (10). However, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the ‘sewerage connection’ is required to be released immediately as the temple has already been opened for the devotees. (11). In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the sewerage connection within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order subject to the condition that the petitioner-Society shall deposit the balance extension fee along with interest at the rate permissible under the Rules/Policies within a period of four months in two equal instalments. (12). Ordered accordingly. (13). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE CWP No.8239 of 2009.doc - 5 – 28.09.2010 vishal shonkar