ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 26-4-1994 made in CWP No. 2950 of 1994. At an open auction conducted by the appellant the respondent, admittedly, was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs 1,16,000. He entered into an agreement on 24-11-1981 and got allotment of Booth No. 28 situated in Phase I, Urban Estate, Sahibjada, Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali). He paid the initial one-fourth amount, namely, Rs 29,125 and he had to pay a balance of Rs 87,373 (sic) in instalments with interest at 7% p.a. Admittedly, he committed default in payment of instalments till notice was issued on 25-11-1993. Therein it was specifically stated that the balance due with interest and penalty was Rs 1,63,456. By his letter dated 1-12-1993 the respondent admitted the liability and asked 20 days time for payment and also sought for reduction of rate of interest and penalty. Yet he did not pay even the principal amount. Instead he went to the High Court and filed the writ petition challenging the notice. The High Court in the impugned order while holding that appellant has discretion, directed to adjust the amount of Rs 75,000 deposited from time to time as per the orders of the Court and the balance of Rs 26,000 was directed to be received. Feeling aggrieved, against that order this appeal has been filed. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that under Rule 13 of the Punjab Urban Estate (Sales of Sites) Rules, 1965 made pursuant to the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 (for short "the Act"), the Estate Officer has been given discretion. It reads thus: "13. Procedure in the case of default.- [Sections 23(2)(a) and 3(2).] In case an instalment is not paid by the transferee by the 10th of the month following the month in which it falls due, a notice shall be served on the transferee calling upon him to pay the instalment within a month together with a sum not exceeding such amount as may be determined by the Estate Officer, by way of penalty. If the payment is not made within the said period or such extended period as may be allowed by the Estate Officer, not exceeding three months in all from the date on which the instalment was originally due, the Estate Officer may proceed to have the same recovered as an arrear of land revenue or to take action under Section 10." 4. As a matter of policy the appellants have been imposing 10% penalty and 7% interest on delayed payments. This being the rule position and having agreed with the rule position, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the action taken by the appellants. We find force in his contention. 5. It is contended for the respondent that under the rules the appellant have discretion only up to the maximum of 10% penalty. They have no right to impose more than 10% and that imposition of 17% by way of interest is a penalty and it cannot be sustained. We find no force in the contention. 6. Exercising the power under Section 10 of the Act, while resuming the property for the default committed, certain consequences were to ensue. One of the consequences is forfeiture of the amount already deposited. While exercising that power, the rule prescribed forfeiture of 10% of the total amount deposited by the defaulter. The said condition is inapplicable to the factual situation. In this case, admittedly, the appellants have not exercised the option given by Section 10. Instead they had exercised the offer option provided in Rule 13 of the Rules. As seen, Rule 13 gives power to the Estate Officer to impose penalty for the default committed as stipulated thereunder. It is now stated and not disputed by the other side that as a matter of policy, the appellant adopted that 10% would be levied as penalty and 7% as interest on delayed payments in terms of the contract. In other words, the total liability is 17%. The respondent misconstrued the scope of the action on the part of the respondent in this behalf. 17% is not the rate of interest. It comprises 10% penalty for nonpayment of instalments and 7% interest on terms of the contract which put together becomes 17%. 7. In other words, the total liability is 17%. The respondent misconstrued the scope of the action on the part of the respondent in this behalf. 17% is not the rate of interest. It comprises 10% penalty for nonpayment of instalments and 7% interest on terms of the contract which put together becomes 17%. 7. Under these circumstances, we find that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the contractual relations entered by the purchasers with the appellant to reduce the amounts payable in terms of the contract read with the Act and the Rules. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Three months time is sought for and is granted for payment of the entire amount either in lump sum or in instalments. In case of default, it is open to the appellant to take such appropriate action as is available under law which will not be again challengeable. The writ petition stands dismissed. For Citation: 1995 Supp (2) SCC 357