Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1374 (PNJ)

Rajinder Kaur v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

2000-11-13

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, K.S.GAREWAL

body2000
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - On November, 18, 1997, the respondent Administration auctioned a site in the Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh for the setting up of Weigh Bridge. The petitioner was the highest bidder. His offer of Rs. 58 lacs was accepted. The petitioner had paid 25% of the amount at the time of auction. In pursuance to the acceptance of the bid, the petitioner was given a letter of allotment on January 19, 1998. The remaining 75% had to be paid in three annual instalments payable on December 10, 1998, December 10, 1999 and December 10, 2000. In October 1998, the petitioner sent two communications to the Estate Officer with the request that amenities be provided at the site so that she may be able to set up the Weigh Bridge and utilise the money spent by her. Nothing was done. Two further representations were submitted in November, 1998. The copies of the four representations are on record as Annexures P-7 to P-10. When the authorities failed to do the needful, the petitionr filed the present writ petition in December 1998. She prays that "a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the amenities such as water connection, sewerage connection, electricity supply, approach road and parking at the site be issued". She further prays that the "instalment, ground rent and interest, which is payable by 10th December 1998 may be deferred and the respondents may be directed to charge the instalment, ground rent and interest after one year from the provision of the amenities". 2. Notice of motion was issued. The respondents put in appearance on April 19, 1999. They were directed to file the written statement two days prior to the date of hearing. No reply was filed. A request for more time was made. On September 13, 1999 further time was granted. The case was adjourned at January 17, 2000. The reply on behalf of the respondents was filed on January 17, 2000. Neither the name nor the designation of the officer who filed the written statement has been disclosed by Ms. Deepali Puri. No reply was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The case was adjourned and finally it was listed for hearing before this Bench on October 10, 2000. On that date a request for adjournment to enable the Administration to file an affidavit was made. Deepali Puri. No reply was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The case was adjourned and finally it was listed for hearing before this Bench on October 10, 2000. On that date a request for adjournment to enable the Administration to file an affidavit was made. Simultaneously time was also granted to Ms. Deepali Puri, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation to obtain instructions regarding the provision of the facilities at the site. It has come up for hearing today. 3. Mr. R.S. Dass, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facilities have not been provided so far. Learned counsel for the respondents states that work on the construction of the road has been started. It could not be commenced earlier on account of financial constraints. 4. The sequence of events, as noticed above, clearly shows that the petitioner has been unable to use the site for lack of basic amenities since November 1997. Even a road has not been provided. Thus, it is not even possible to reach the site. The setting up or utilisation of the Weigh Bridge is obviously difficult. It is on account of the inaction on the part of the respondents that the petitioner has been unable to derive any advantage from the land and to earn a return on the substantial amount of money already spent by her. 5. A fact, which deserves mention is that in the written statement filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation on January 17, 2000 it was stated that facilities such as sewerage and water supply have been provided. It was also averred that "only the roads and parking area are required to be metalled/constructed, which would be completed within a period of six months". Admittedly, a period of more than 9 months has elapsed since then. The roads and parking area have still not been constructed. The petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of the amount of Rs. 15 lacs spent by her till now. Why ? Many excuses. But, no execution. 6. A citizen, who delays the payment of an instalment of money is burdened with the payment of interest and penalty at the rate of 24%. In the present case the respondents have retained the petitioners money without providing anything to her for the last about three years. Why ? Many excuses. But, no execution. 6. A citizen, who delays the payment of an instalment of money is burdened with the payment of interest and penalty at the rate of 24%. In the present case the respondents have retained the petitioners money without providing anything to her for the last about three years. The sequence of events discloses a total indifference to the obligation imposed on the Administration. No explanation for the failure to provide a basic necessity like a road and parking area has been given. Ms. Deepali Puri states that there were financial constraints. Did the Municipal Corporation, which she represents, ask the Administration for funds ? If yes, when ? There is no answer either in the written statement or even at the hearing. It appears that the Administration as well as the Corporation are living beyond their income. The citizen pays and yet suffers. We cannot compliment the respondents for their inertia and inaction. There are too many who claim to be Civil Servants. But there is too little of service to the citizen. 7. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we direct that the payment of instalment by the petitioner shall be deferred. She will be liable to pay the first instalment at the expiry of one year from the date on which all the facilities are provided. Still further, the respondents shall not be entitled to charge any interest or ground rent for the period from November 1997 to the date on which the amenities like the road, water and sewerage connection are provided. The terms of allotment should be read accordingly. It is clarified that the second and third instalments would become due at the expiry of one year each from the date on which the first instalment falls due. We, hope, this would awaken the authorities and the others like the petitioner would not continue to suffer. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall also be entitled to her costs, which are assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. Petition allowed.