JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J. - In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to the respondents to provide facilities/amenities in respect of SCO site No. 36, 37 and 38, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh in accordance with provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (for short, the Rules) and till then, they be restrained from charging ground rent and interest. 2. The facts :- On the basis of the highest bid of Rs. 3,00,01,000.00 given in the open auction held on 25.7.1996, SCO site in question was allotted to the petitioner subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment letter Annexure P-2 dated 26.8.1996. Simultaneously, copy of the letter No. 23370/- CPL-5413/CIA-I dated 26.8.1996 written by the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh to the Executive Engineer, Capital Project Division No. 2, (R) Chandigarh was sent to the petitioner for taking possession of the site on any working day, but its representative took possession on 11.9.1996. The building plan submitted by the petitioner was sanctioned on 7.11.1996. The construction of the building was completed some time in November, 1997 and electric connection was released on 27.11.1998 on the basis of the application dated 27.11.1997. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to the lack of amenities like, approach road, parking, street lights, service lane etc., it has not been able to make use of the building and despite the representations made to the respondents, steps have not been taken to provide the same but, at the same time, the respondents are taking coercive steps for realisation of the so-called dues of instalments and interest. 4. In paragraph 5 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it has been averred that the amenities, like sewerage line, water-pipeline, storm water line, which are essential for raising construction have already been provided and other amenities are in the process of being provided. 4. In paragraph 5 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it has been averred that the amenities, like sewerage line, water-pipeline, storm water line, which are essential for raising construction have already been provided and other amenities are in the process of being provided. According to them, the construction of the show-room-cum-offices in the Shopping Centre of Sector 8-C is in full swing and the space for parking is being used for collection of raw material, mixing and storage by the allottees and, therefore, parking can be constructed only after the completing of construction of Shopping Centre. The respondents have averred that the approach road and street lights are to be provided by Municipal Corporation and the petitioner cannot avoid payment of the dues in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment letter on the pretext of lack of certain amenities. 5. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, it has been averred that parking light, street lights etc. have been provided in the area and the SCOs are functioning at the site. 6. In the replication filed on behalf of the petitioner to the written statement of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it has been reiterated that the respondents have failed to provide amenities, like approach road, parking lights, street lights etc. and, therefore, it is not liable to pay ground rent and interest. 7. In the additional affidavit of Assistant Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with C.M. No. 16490 of 2000, the following details have been given with regard to the status of the site in question :- 1) SCO No. : 36-37-38, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh (CPL No. 5413) 2) Date of Auction. : 25.07.1996 3) Date of allotment letter. : 26.08.1996 4) Date on which the possession was offered (possession was offered vide Annexure R/2) : 26.08.1996 5) Date on which possession was obtained vide Annexure R/3. : 11.09.1996 6) Date of sanctioning plan. : 07.11.1996 7) Date of sewerage connection. : Not issued, but illegal S/C has been done at site. 8) Date of obtaining occupation certificate. : Not issued. 9) Date of application for release of electric connection. : 27.11.1997 10) Date of release of electric connection. : 27.11.1998 11) Outstanding dues. : Rs. 8,57,683/- 12) Penalty imposed. : 07.11.1996 7) Date of sewerage connection. : Not issued, but illegal S/C has been done at site. 8) Date of obtaining occupation certificate. : Not issued. 9) Date of application for release of electric connection. : 27.11.1997 10) Date of release of electric connection. : 27.11.1998 11) Outstanding dues. : Rs. 8,57,683/- 12) Penalty imposed. : NIL 13) Work of construction of Road/Parking was completed. : Prior to December, 1999 14) State of construction. : Extension for completion of building granted upto 31.12.1999. 15) Details of Occupier : The Basement/ground floor occupied by the British Library. Ist & IInd floor unoccupied." 8. The question as to whether a person to whom the site has been allotted in accordance with the provisions of the Rules can avoid payment of instalments, ground rent and interest in terms of Rules 9 to 13 of the Rules has been considered by this Court in several cases and the consistent view of the Court is that the allottee cannot avoid its contractual obligation to pay the dues on the pretext of the lack of amenities, like parking, service road, street lights etc. In C.W.P. No. 9503 of 1996, Ajit Singh and others v. Chandigarh Administration through Administrator, Union Territory and others, decided on 29.8.1996, it was urged on behalf of the petitioners that they were not bound to pay instalments because amenities had not been provided by the respondents. While rejecting their contention, the Court held as under :- "......There is another important reason why no indulgence should be shown to the petitioners. The allotment letter, Annexure P.1, contains a clear stipulation regarding the schedule of payment. Para 8 of the allotment letter postulates cancellation of lease on account of non-payment of instalments money. Para 8-A empowers the Estate Officer to allow payment of instalments with penalty upto 100 per cent of the amount due and interest at the rate of 12 per cent for the delayed period. Duty to pay fee and taxes etc. was also of the petitioners. In addition to the conditions incorporated in the letter of allotment, the petitioners were bound to abide the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The general terms and conditions laid down by the Administration form part of the contract entered into between the petitioners and the respondents. Duty to pay fee and taxes etc. was also of the petitioners. In addition to the conditions incorporated in the letter of allotment, the petitioners were bound to abide the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The general terms and conditions laid down by the Administration form part of the contract entered into between the petitioners and the respondents. Paras 11, 12 and 21 of the general conditions also contemplate payment of 25 per cent amount as a condition precedent to the acceptance of bid; remaining 75 per cent in three equated instalments along with interest, and cancellation of the lease as well as forfeiture of the whole or part of the premium already paid. The petitioners took possession of the property and raised construction thereon after having accepted the conditions incorporated in Annexures P.1 and R.1. They did so knowing fully the implications and consequences of their failure to pay the instalment money. After having accepted those conditions and taken public property on an assurance that they would faithfully comply with the conditions of payment laid down by the Administration, the petitioners are not entitled to plead that they were not bound to make payment of instalments on the ground that basic amenities were not provided by the Administration. We may add that payment of instalments was not subject to the Administration providing basic amenities to the petitioner. Rather the conditions incorporated in Annexures P.1 and R.1 made it obligatory for the petitioners to pay their duties. Thus, the petitioners cannot wriggle out of the contract which they had entered into with the respondents. In matters like the present one, writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the High Court to permit a party to commit a breach of the terms and conditions of contract of allotment." In Sukhpal Singh Kang and others v. Chandigarh Administration & another, (1999-1)121 PLR 54, the petitioner claimed that the respondents are bound to allot fully developed site and they cannot charge premium etc. till all the amenities are provided. till all the amenities are provided. While rejecting the same, a Division Bench held as under : We have thoughtfully considered the respective submissions and, in our opinion, there is no merit in the argument of S/Shri M.L. Sarin, P.S. Patwalia and other learned counsel that possession of the sites cannot be treated to have been legally transferred until all the amenities are made available by the respondents because it is based on a wholly erroneous assumption that the respondents are obliged to auction fully developed sites. Section 3 of the Act and Rule 4 of the 1973 Rules do not speak of the transfer of the fully developed land/sites only. Thus, the statute does not cast duty on the respondents to undertake development so as to provide all the amenities specified in Section 2(b) of the Act before transferring the land/sites. We also do not find anything in the rules from which it can be inferred that the administration of Union Territory is under an implied obligation to auction fully developed sites. The auction notices and the general terms and conditions, which were made known to the bidders at the time of auction did not postulate transfer of sites with all amenities. As a matter of fact, by virtue of clause 12 of the general terms and conditions of auction and clause 20 of the letter of allotment, it was made clear to the prospective lessees that the government does not own the responsibility for levelling the uneven sites. It is, thus, clear that the respondents did not invite bids for the sites by making representations to the public that fully developed sites will be auctioned. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx The argument of the learned counsel that the respondents are estopped from making recovery of the instalments of premium etc. because they have violated the terms and conditions of contract entered into with the petitioners by not providing the amenities is wholly untenable. At the cost of repetition, we deem it appropriate to observe that neither in the conditions of auction nor in the terms of allotment any indication was given to the petitioners that the respondents will be giving possession of the fully developed sites or that the availability of amenities like approach roads, street lights, parking places etc. would constitute a condition precedent for payment of instalments. would constitute a condition precedent for payment of instalments. Therefore, the petitioners cannot avoid their liability to pay the instalments of premium and ground rent. That apart, after having taken part in the auction with full knowledge of the terms and conditions notified by the respondents and having accepted the leases of the sites on the basis of terms and conditions incorporated in the letters of allotment without any protest, the petitioners will be deemed to have agreed to pay the amount of premium along with interest and ground rent in terms of Rules 12 and 13 of the 1973 Rules. In our considered opinion, the petitioners cannot seek intervention of the Court for getting themselves relieved of their obligation to pay the amount due to the respondents in accordance with the terms of contract." 9. In view of the above noted decisions, we do not find any difficulty in rejecting the petitioners plea that notwithstanding the stipulations contained in Clauses 5, 6 and 9 of the letter of allotment requiring it to pay the balance 75% in three equated instalments with interest and ground rent, it should be relieved from the obligation of paying the dues till all the amenities/facilities are provided by the respondents. 10. Moreover, in view of the categorical statement made in the written statements of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that sewerage-line, water-pipeline, parking roads, street lights, parking lights have already been provided in the area, which have remained uncontroverted and the fact that the petitioners have leased out a part of the building to British Library, its assertion about the lack of amenities is liable to be ignored. 11. We are also convinced that plea of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that pucca parking cannot be provided at the site before the completion of the entire block of SCOs. It is a matter of common knowledge that building material is brought in heavy trucks and unloaded at the site of construction. It is also well-known that construction of building involves several activities which make it impossible to construct metalled roads/parking before the completion of construction in the area. If pucca road is constructed before the commencement of the building activities, the same will continuously get damaged by heavy vehicles bringing material at the site. It is also well-known that construction of building involves several activities which make it impossible to construct metalled roads/parking before the completion of construction in the area. If pucca road is constructed before the commencement of the building activities, the same will continuously get damaged by heavy vehicles bringing material at the site. Therefore, it is prudent for the Administration to provide kutcha road in the first instance and lay the metalled road at the site after the completion of buildings in the entire block or at least a substantial part thereof. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that there is no valid reason to entertain the petitioners prayer for issuance of a mandamus to the respondents to provide the remaining amenities, like pucca roads etc. at the site before completion of the buildings of the block or to restrain them from charging interest or ground rent. 13. In view of the above conclusion, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.