M/S.Angel Baby Products Pvt.Ltd vs New Okhla Indust.Dev.Auth. & Ors

2. On 24th March, 2002, the Petitioners made a representation to the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA, for waiver of penalty on the ground that since the exact area and location of the plot was different from that specified in the brochure, the delay in execution of the lease deed could not be attributed to the Writ Petitioners and, accordingly, penalty could not be imposed against them. It appears that the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA, waived the penalty imposed on the Writ Petitioners and granted them further two months' time to complete the execution of the lease deed. However, before the expiry of the said period of two months, the NOIDA authorities had written to the Writ Petitioners on 1st May, 2002, indicating that penalty would be charged with effect from 22nd November, 2001. The Writ Petitioners responded to 4 the said letter by submitting a representation dated 15th May, 2002, praying for waiving the penalty on account of the drain passing through plot and also for providing any alternative plot in lieu of the plot already allotted.

3. The Writ Petitioners were informed on 22nd March, 2003, that the Board of NOIDA had rejected their proposal for waiver of the penalty and that the same would have to be paid within 30 days, otherwise their allotment would be cancelled. At the initial stage when the Writ Petition was filed, the High Court had passed an interim order on 18th April, 2003, staying the operation of imposition of penalty against the Writ Petitioners. Ultimately, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, the High Court took note of Clause 25 of the Scheme indicating that the plots were to be sold on "as is where is" basis, leading to the presumption that the Writ Petitioners had knowledge of the existing irrigation drain on the 5 plot. The High Court also took note of the power reserved to the NOIDA authorities to vary the area of the plot, which the allottee was bound to accept as final. The High Court also took into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the Board of NOIDA that in its 113th meeting held on 10th February, 2003, the Petitioners' representation was finally rejected but despite the same they did not deposit the penalty and insisted upon the waiver of penalty and interest.

4. Having arrived at the conclusion that the Writ Petitioners had knowledge of all the terms and conditions, status, location and other details about the plot, which was advertised for allotment, the High Court felt that there was no merit in the Writ Petition and dismissed the same. The interim order passed in the matter was also vacated.

7. As indicated hereinabove, the imposition of penalty is the bone of contention in this Special Leave Petition.

11. Mr. Ravindra Kumar submitted that no case had at all been made out for interference with the orders passed by the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition.

16. With the aforesaid modification of the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer on 22nd July, 2002 and the subsequent resolution of the NOIDA 17 taken at the meeting convened on 15th February, 2003, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.

17. There will, however, be no order as to costs.