Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 714 (RAJ)

Noor Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan

2008-03-07

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - The writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the notice dated 23.09.2000 issued to the petitioner by the respondent Municipal Board, Bundi be quashed and set aside and the respondent Board be directed to restore the allotment of the petitioner by adjusting the amount of Rs. 1,000/- along with the interest deposited by him with them on 16.12.1975. The respondent Board originally formulated the scheme in the name of Khailand Commercial Scheme and the petitioner applied for allotment of the said plot therein. The petitioner was alloted plot No.22 and deposited the amount of Rs. 1,000 on2/8 17.12.1975, as the 1/4th of amount. He was served by a letter dated 22.04.1976 by the Municipal Board to deposit the remaining 3/4th amount, which is Rs. 3000/-. However, in the meantime, the said scheme was cancelled because of some litigation. The respondent thereafter, formulated another scheme in the year 1983. The petitioner this time was alloted plot No. E-72 on 10.10.1983. The petitioner deposited Rs. 2500/- and thereafter, he deposited further amount of Rs. 2500/- on 17.12.1983. The respondent Board then served a demand notice on the petitioner for depositing a remaining amount of Rs. 2500/-. In response thereof, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent Board on 28.02.1984 and submitted that the amount of Rs. 1,000/-, which had been lying in deposit with the respondent Board since 1975, should be adjusted along with the interest against the outstanding amount of Rs. 2500/-. The respondent Board did not take any action on such representation of the petitioner. It was thereafter that the petitioner on 04.12.1991, served a notice on the petitioner that the remaining amount of Rs. 2500/- be deposited with the Board along ⅜ with the interest. A total sum of Rs. 10,500/ was required to be deposited within a period of seven days. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said notice, in which he has reiterated his earlier request and stated that if the interest is charged on the outstanding amount of Rs.2500/- payable by the petitioner, the respondent Board should also adjust his amount of Rs. 1000/- along with interest. 2. Though the notice of the writ petition was served on respondent long back but so far no reply to the writ petition has been filed. 3. 1000/- along with interest. 2. Though the notice of the writ petition was served on respondent long back but so far no reply to the writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in spite of a specific request made by the petitioner to the respondents to adjust his amount of Rs. 1000/- along with the interest, which had been lying with them for the period of eight years and two months when he made a representation on 28.02.1984. The respondents did not take any action. Now they are seeking to charge from the petitioner interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay in making payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 2500/-. It is argued that action 4/8 of the respondents is subject to judicial review by this Court and can be challenged before this Court if it is manifestly, arbitrary and unreasonable. Action of the respondent, in charging interest from the petitioner and at the same time not paying interest to him for the amount which remained deposited with them since 17.12.1975 is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. The respondents illegally cancelled the allotment of shop No. E72 vide order dated 23 September 2000. The impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the allotment of the plot No. E72 was an independent allotment and it had nothing to do with the earlier proceedings of allotment. It was argued that the petitioner was required to deposit 1/4th amount immediately at the time of allotment and remaining 3/4th amount when demanded. Notice was issued to the petitioner on 01.12.1983 and thereafter, when the petitioner failed to make the deposit for quite sometime, then notice was again issued to him on 04.12.1991. The petitioner did not deposit the amount. The respondents were left with no option but to cancel the allotment vide impugned order dated 23.09.2000, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration on arguments and the material available on record. 6. The documents which are on record clearly shows that prior to the allotment of the plot No. E 72, the petitioner was alloted another plot in 1975 and he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on 17.12.1975. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration on arguments and the material available on record. 6. The documents which are on record clearly shows that prior to the allotment of the plot No. E 72, the petitioner was alloted another plot in 1975 and he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on 17.12.1975. Infact, when the respondent initially issued notice to the petitioner, he requested for adjustment the said amount. The respondent Board vide their letter dated 13.12.1992 required the petitioner to produce the receipts of the earlier deposit and any other document, which he might be having before the Executive Officer of the respondent Board for verification on 03.01.1992. The proceedings of the Board have been placed on record, which indicate that the decision was taken on6/8 06.01.2000, whereby the respondents decided to charge interest from the petitioner @ 15% per annum for the period from 1983 to 1996 on 16.01.1997 and this was done after reducing the outstanding amount of Rs. 25,00/- by Rs. 1,000/-. The interest was thus charged on the amount of Rs. 1500/- only. The total sum of Rs. 2,925/- was thus to be charged as interest with the outstanding amount of Rs. 1500/-. When the writ petition was filed by the petitioner, this Court while issuing notice on 07.11.2000 directed that the operation of the impugned order cancelling the allotment shall remain stayed subject to petitioner depositing the outstanding amount of Rs. 4,425/-. 7. The facts of the case, which are not in dispute are that the amount of Rs. 1,000/ was deposited by the petitioner with respondents on 17.12.1975 and this remained with the respondents till the allotment was made to him on 10.10.1983, It cannot be accepted that while the respondent would charge interest from the petitioner but at the same time, the petitioner would not be entitled to any interest for the amount which ⅞ remained deposited with the respondents for the purpose of allotment of the commercial plot. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was alloted a plot pursuant to the process of allotment concluded by the respondent in 1975 and the said allotment was cancelled by the respondents owing to certain litigation. If the earlier allotment was cancelled by the respondents for no fault of the petitioner, the respondent Board ought to have immediately refunded the amount of Rs. 1000/- to the petitioner. If the earlier allotment was cancelled by the respondents for no fault of the petitioner, the respondent Board ought to have immediately refunded the amount of Rs. 1000/- to the petitioner. If the same is not done so, it cannot insist on not adjusting the said amount with interest when it has realised the interest on the outstanding amount from the petitioner. It is also liable to make payment of interest to the petitioner as well for his money which it retained for as long. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the respondent Board would adjust the amount of Rs. 1000/- of the petitioner which remained with them since 17.12.1975 with interest @ 9% till first deposit made by him in regard to allotment in question i.e. on 10.10.1983. If on adjustment 8/8 of such amount still certain amount remains due to be charged from the petitioner, the respondent Board would also be entitled to charge interest on such amount from the petitioner at the rate of 9% per annum. It however, upon adjustment of the amount of Rs. 4425/- deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order passed by the Court on 07.11.2000 and the amount of Rs. 1000/- with interest, the petitioner is found to be entitled to refund of such amount with the same rate of interest. 9. The present writ petition is accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs.Writ petition allowed. *******