JUDGMENT MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN, J. This judgment shall dispose of fourteen Civil Writ Petitions (No.25608, 25610, 25611, 25612, 25613, 25614, 25615, 25616, 25617, 25619, 25620, 25621, 25622 and 25623 of 2013), as these involve common questions of fact and law. However, for convenience, the facts necessary for disposal of the petitions, have been taken from C.W.P No.25608 of 2013. In an open auction held on 17.07.1998, petitioner was the highest bidder for Plot No.1 measuring 20 Ft. X 50 Ft. in the New Sabji Mandi, Ballabgarh. Tentative price of the plot was Rs.26,30,000/. Petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.5,37,500/, claiming it to be 25% of the total price of the plot, at the fall of the hammer, as per terms and conditions of auction contained in pamphlet (Annexure P1). As per Clause 3 of the terms and conditions of auction the petitioner could deposit the balance amount, i.e., 75% of the total price of the plot, within 30 days from the date of issue of the letter of allotment, without interest, or in six half yearly equated instalments with interest @ 15% per annum. Petitioner having deposited an amount of Rs.5,37,500/at the fall of the hammer, Plot No.1 measuring 20 Ft. X 50 Ft. was allotted to him vide letter of allotment dated 08.06.1999 (Annexure P2). Clause 3(a) of the letter of allotment (Annexure P2) reads as under: “3(a) The following plot/site is hereby allotted to you on the terms and conditions announced at the spot and mentioned here under and subject to the provisions of the PAPM, Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules/regulations applicable thereunder and the amended from time to time. The appropriate area of the site and the tentative price of the plot given below, are subject to the adjustment in accordance with the actual measurement at the time of handing over possession: Kind Size of plot No. of Plot Approx area of plot & dimension Tentative price of plot Category of reservation Name of the allottee 1 2 3 4 5 6 20' X 50' 1 1000 Sq.ft 26,30,000/ - 1. Sh. Moti Lal S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand. 2. Sh. Kali Charan S/o Sh. Sohan Ballabgarh. No. of Installment Due Date Amount of installment Interest will be calculated at the time of payment @ 15%. Sh. Moti Lal S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand. 2. Sh. Kali Charan S/o Sh. Sohan Ballabgarh. No. of Installment Due Date Amount of installment Interest will be calculated at the time of payment @ 15%. 1 01.12.99 3,28,750 2 1.6..2000 3,28,750 3 1.12.2000 3,28,750 4 1.6.2001 3,28,750 5 1.12.2001 3,28,750 6 1.6.2002 3,28,750 As per Clause 3(b) of the letter of allotment (Annexure P2), in case of petitioner's failure to deposit the installment(s) by the due dates(s), compound interest @ 15% per annum along with penal interest @ 4% per annum was chargeable with installments. Petitioner after having deposited an amount of Rs.5,37,500/did not deposit the remainder either in one lump sum or in installments as per schedule of payment given in the letter of allotment which was agreed to by him. Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula, (for short, 'DCF') for waiving off the interest/penal interest on the principal amount, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.10.2004 (Annexure P4), whereby following directions were issued to the respondents: “a) To complete the development works and intimate the respective complainants in writing as discussed above at the earliest; b) not to charge any interest from the respective complainants on the amount of instalments; whether delayed or penal till the development works are complete and if any such interest has been charged then the Ops are directed to adjust the same towards any balance amount to be paid by the complainants and in any eventuality there remains any extra, then the same may be refunded immediately. c) Also pay a sum of Rs.1000/as lump sum compensation in each case.” The respondent Market Committee challenged order dated 06.10.2004 (Annexure P4) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short 'the State Commission'). The State Commission, vide order dated 24.05.2010 (Annexure P5), held as under: “As a sequel to our aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the complaints filed by the complainants before the District Consumer Forum are not maintainable on the ground of limitation as well as on the ground that they are not “Consumers”. Hence, they are not entitled to get any relief by filing the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, they are not entitled to get any relief by filing the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly all these appeals are accepted, impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum in complaints No.518, 520, 521, 522, 528, 529, 550, 551 and 552 of 2003 are set aside and consequently the complaints are dismissed with liberty to the parties to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction to get their grievance redressed in these cases on the same cause of action. However, the complainants would be entitled to the benefit of the provision of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 remained pending before the District Consumer Forum as well as the State Commission, provided the complainants approach the Court of competent jurisdiction within 60 days from the date of passing of this order.” Petitioner then filed an appeal under Section 40 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') and under Rule 11 of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000 (for short, 'the Rules') against the action of the respondents in demanding installments along with compound and penal interest without providing the basic facilities. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 17.01.2012 (Annexure P6) disposed of the appeal by holding as under: “I heard both the parties. I have also perused the relevant record available on the file. It is well settled law that the allotment by open auction is purely a contractual relationship and therefore, is to be regulated by the terms and conditions of allotment letter. It is evident from the record that the allotment was made on 8.9.1999. As per terms and conditions of allotment letter, no separate offer of possession was required at that time and the allotment letter was itself considered as offer of possession. Moreover, the provision of basic amenities was also not a precondition at the time of allotment to offer the possession or to charge the interest/penal interest. In view of the above, the appellants cannot claim any relief on the basis of lack of basic amenities at the time of allotment. However, the counsel for the appellant has also claimed relief on the basis of notification dated 5.3.2002 vide which the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000, were amended. In view of the above, the appellants cannot claim any relief on the basis of lack of basic amenities at the time of allotment. However, the counsel for the appellant has also claimed relief on the basis of notification dated 5.3.2002 vide which the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000, were amended. Rule 4(5) was amended to the effect that interest on installments shall accrue from the date of offer of possession. Rule 5 was amended to the effect that the possession of the plot shall be offered to the allottee by the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Market Committee within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter if minimum basic facilities i.e. roads, water supply, sewerage and electrification are in place and if the said basic facilities are not in place then after providing the said basic facilities. It is admitted by the E.O. cum-Secretary, Market Committee, Ballabhgarh that the said basic amenities were completed in the year of 2007. I am of the view that the relief provided by the notification dated 5.3.2002, should be extended to the appellants to meet the ends of justice. However, the said notification cannot be plainly applied in the faces and circumstances of the case. Therefore, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the interest from 5.3.2002 till the date of provision of basic amenities i.e. in the year of 2007 should be computed as simple interest in place of compound interest. As far as the contention of appellants regarding change of the site plan is concerned, the appellants cannot claim any relief in terms of waiving of interest on the said ground. In view of the above, the appellants are liberty to pay interest/penal interest in terms of allotment letter from the date of allotment till 4.3.2002 and again from the date of provision of basic amenities till 14.9.2011 i.e. the day on which order was reserved. However, as far as the period from 5.3.2002 till the date on which basic amenities were provided is concerned, the appellants are liable to pay only simple interest @ 15% per annum. In sequel of above, the impugned notices are partly set aside. However, as far as the period from 5.3.2002 till the date on which basic amenities were provided is concerned, the appellants are liable to pay only simple interest @ 15% per annum. In sequel of above, the impugned notices are partly set aside. The E.O. cum-Secretary, Market Committee, Ballabgarh is directed to recalculate the pending dues towards appellants in above said terms and communicate the same to the appellants within 15 days from the receiving of copy of this order. The appellant are also directed to deposit the pending dues within one month from such communication.” Against the order dated 17.01.2012 (Annexure P6), petitioner filed a revision petition before the Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Agriculture Department (respondent No.1), who, vide order dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure P7), held as under: “..... In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are asked to pay only simple interest @ 15% per annum in addition to penal interest @ 4% per annum to be calculated on simple interest basis. However, no compound interest would be charged from the petitioner. The impugned order is accordingly modified and it is ordered that the petitioners would be liable to pay simple interest @ 15% per annum along with 4% penal interest (to be calculated on simple interest basis) for the period of default in making the payment of the installments. In case the petitioners had already constructed the shop on the plot allotted to them, no extension fee would be charged from them in view of the fact that the basis amenities were provided only in the year 2007. The Secretary, Market Committee will convey the revised calculations to the petitioners within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and the petitioners would make the payment of balance amount, if due, within six months from the receipt of the calculations along with simple interest as mentioned above.” In compliance of the order dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure P7), respondent No.3, vide demand notice/letter dated 22.06.2013 (Annexure P8), informed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.72,50,581/upto 30.06.2013. To seek quashing of orders dated 17.01.2012 (Annexure P6) and 06.09.2012 (Annexure P7) passed by the appellate authority and revisional authority, respectively, and demand notice/letter dated 22.06.2013 (Annexure P8) issued by respondent No.3 and to seek issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to charge interest on the balance amount, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of this civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner could not deposit the installments as the respondents failed to carry out development work and to provide basic amenities, such as, water supply, sewerage, electrification, roads, sheds, street lights, mandi gates, bank building, post office etc., and, as such, the respondents cannot be allowed to charge interest and penal interest on the delayed payment. This, in our opinion, is hardly an excuse for not paying the due installments. We may refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority v. Raghu Nath Gupta, (2012) 8 SCC 197 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 397 wherein it has been held as under: “14. We notice that the respondents had accepted the commercial plots with open eyes, subject to the abovementioned conditions. Evidently, the commercial plots were allotted on ‘asiswhereis’ basis. The allottees would have ascertained the facilities available at the time of auction and after having accepted the commercial plots on ‘asiswhereis’ basis, they cannot be heard to contend that PUDA had not provided the basic amenities like parking, lights, roads, water, sewerage, etc. If the allottees were not interested in taking the commercial plots on ‘asiswhereis’ basis, they should not have accepted the allotment and after having accepted the allotment on ‘asiswhereis’ basis, they are estopped from contending that the basic amenities like parking, lights, roads, water, sewerage, etc. were not provided by PUDA when the plots were allotted.” Learned counsel representing the petitioner has not been able to point out any clause in the letter of allotment or any provision of law whereby making payment of installments, interest and penalty etc., is dependent upon provision of infrastructural facilities/amenities. A similar contention raised in Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & others Vs. A similar contention raised in Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & others Vs. M/s Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 26, was answered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as under: “On a plain reading of the definition “amenities” read with Rule 11 (2) and Rule 12, it cannot be construed to mean that the allottees could take upon themselves not to pay the lease amount and take recourse to say that since all the facilities were not provided, therefore, they are not under any obligation to pay the installment, interest and penalty, if any, as provided under the Act and the Rules……It has never been the condition precedent. It is true that in order to fully enjoy the allotment, proper linkage is necessary. But to say that this is a condition precedent, that is not the correct approach in the matter……. It is true the word, “enjoy” appearing in the definition of the word “premium” in Rule 3(2) of the Rules, means the price paid or promised for the transfer of a right to enjoy immovable property under the Rules. It was very seriously contended before us that the word, enjoy immovable property necessarily means that the Administration should provide all the basic amenities as appearing under Section 2(b) of the Act for enjoying that allotment. The expression “premium” appearing in the present context does not mean that the allottees/lessees cannot enjoy the immovable property without those amenities being provided. The word “enjoy” here in the present context means that the allottees have a right to use the immovable property which has been leased out to them on payment of premium i.e. the price….. It is the common experience that for full development of an area it takes years. It is not possible in every case that the whole area is developed first and allotment is served on a platter. Allotment of the plot was made on an as –is where is basis and the Administration promised that the basic amenities will be provided in due course of time. It cannot be made a condition precedent. This has never been a condition of the auction or of the lease. Allotment of the plot was made on an as –is where is basis and the Administration promised that the basic amenities will be provided in due course of time. It cannot be made a condition precedent. This has never been a condition of the auction or of the lease. As per the terms of allotment upon payment of the 25 per cent, possession will be handed over and rest of the 75 per cent of the leased amount to be paid in a staggered manner i.e. in three annual equated installments along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent. If someone wants to deposit the whole of the 75 per cent of the amount he can do so. In that case, he will not be required to pay any interest. But if a party wants to make payment within a period of three years then he is under the obligation to pay 10 per cent interest on the amount of installment. This is the obligation on the part of the allottee as per the condition of lease and he cannot get out of it by saying that the basic amenities have not been provided for enjoying the allotted land, therefore he is not liable to pay the interest”. We asked the learned counsel for the parties to tell us which is the obligation of the lessor in the lease deed which says that they will not charge interest on the installments before providing the amenities. There is neither any condition in the lease nor any obligation under the auction. If the parties have given their bids and with their eyes wide open, they have to blame themselves. It cannot be enforced by any mandamus as there is no obligation contained in the lease deed or in the auction notice.” The proposition of law adumbrated in the case of Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & others Vs. M/s Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been reasserted in U.T. Chandigarh Administration Vs. Amarjeet Singh, & others, 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 401. This Court was also confronted with a similar question in CWP No. 15768 of 2001, Satwant Singh versus Chandigarh Administration, U.T., Chandigarh and Others (and a bunch of other petitions). M/s Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been reasserted in U.T. Chandigarh Administration Vs. Amarjeet Singh, & others, 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 401. This Court was also confronted with a similar question in CWP No. 15768 of 2001, Satwant Singh versus Chandigarh Administration, U.T., Chandigarh and Others (and a bunch of other petitions). A Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us, Satish Kumar Mittal, J.) was a member disposed of the controversy by holding thus: “Therefore, on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case law cited above, read with the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment and as per the provisions of the Chandigarh (Lease Hold of Sites and Buildings), Rules 1973, it is held that timely payment of instalments, as per the letters of allotment, and payment of interest on such instalments as per the 1973 Rules, as also payment of ground rent, and penal rent for nonpayment of instalments and ground rent, is not dependent upon provision of basic amenities. The petitioners, who are allottees of sites leased out to them by auction, would be bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, and payment of installments and ground rent, as also interest and penal interest, would have to be in accordance with the relevant rules, read with the letter of allotment. The interest and penal interest, wherever charged, would be as was stipulated in the 1973 Rules, on the date of auction, in each case”. The case under adjudication, undeniably, relates to commercial property sold by way of open auction. Auction is basically an exercise in raising revenues for the Government and it goes without saying that nonpayment of price by the purchaser visits the public exchequer with loss of revenue and very purpose of holding an auction to fetch maximum price, is forfeited. We may also remind ourselves that while dealing with resumption of a residential site consideration may be that it is needed by the allottee to provide a shelter to the family but it is not so as regards a commercial property, for, it is used by the allottee to earn profits. The present petitioners, as hereinbefore noticed, are earning profits from the booth site since the year 1999 but have paid nothing towards the outstanding nine installments. The present petitioners, as hereinbefore noticed, are earning profits from the booth site since the year 1999 but have paid nothing towards the outstanding nine installments. The situation reminds of judgment dated 20.09.2007 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh Versus Vipin Kumar Jain, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.12968 of 2006. In that case the auction purchaser of a commercial site had defaulted in payment of second and third installments which led to resumption of the site. After dismissal of his appeal the allottee approached this Court and deposited Rs.10 lacs. Still an amount of Rs.15 lacs was outstanding against him. He then withdrew the writ petition to avail remedy of revision. The revisional authority allowed one month's time to him to clear the outstanding dues. Instead of doing so he again approached this Court and was allowed two months' time to pay the entire outstanding amount. The matter reached the Hon'ble Apex Court and was disposed of by observing : “Auction is a price discovery mechanism which falls in the contractual realm. In the present case we are concerned with commercial sites. Auction is basically an exercise in raising revenues for the Government. When the price is not paid within time it results in loss of revenue to the State. Time is the essence of the contract in matters concerning auction. Property prices rise by the day. In the present case there was no illegality in the holding of auction. Despite repeated notices issued to the respondent calling upon him to make payment, respondent failed to pay within the stipulated period. Despite repeated indulgence being shown to the respondent by the competent authorities payments were not made. Property prices increase by the day and if within stipulated period contractual obligations are not fulfilled then in that event the State suffers losses which cannot be compensated in terms of interest or penalty after four years. Ultimately auction is an exercise for detecting or discovering the price prevalent in the particular area in a particular year and if time overruns are to be allowed on flimsy excuses for not paying the money in time then the entire exercise would fail. Ultimately auction is an exercise for detecting or discovering the price prevalent in the particular area in a particular year and if time overruns are to be allowed on flimsy excuses for not paying the money in time then the entire exercise would fail. We are therefore of the view that the High Court should not have interfered in the process in which the Corporation was fully justified and entitled to forfeit 10% of the amount and to invite fresh offers on new terms and conditions.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred to an earlier decision in the case of Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. vs. U.T.Chandigarh & Ors. reported in 2004 (2) SCC 130 in which Sinha J, speaking on behalf of the Division Bench, had observed, vide para 57, as follows: “We may, however, hasten to add that we do not intend to lay down a law that the statutory right conferring the right of the respondent should never be resorted to. We have merely laid down the principle giving some illustrations where it may not be used. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that if the intention of the allottee is dishonest or with an ill motive and if the allottee does not make any payment in terms of the allotment or the statute with a dishonest view or any dishonest motive, then Section 8A can be taken recourse to.” We have not been able to persuade ourselves to take a view different from what is stated in the cited judgments and to interfere with the impugned orders because such interference would amount to allowing a premium to the petitioner for his willful avoidance of payment of due installments and interest etc. and thereby depriving the respondents of the revenue for more than thirteen long years. In view of the above, all the abovementioned writ petitions are hereby dismissed.