Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1163 (PNJ)

Bhagirath Rai v. State of Punjab

2014-08-06

HEMANT GUPTA, KULDIP SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta J. (Oral) - Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 06.02.1992 passed by the Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab, Chandigarh, whereby the request of the petitioner the auction of Grain Shop Plot No.216 in Mandi Sunam was cancelled after deducting 10% of the consideration money. Such order was affirmed by the learned Commissioner on 14.09.1992 (Annexure P-9), but in further revision, the learned Financial Commissioner ordered the refund of the entire consideration amount deposited by the petitioner. Still aggrieved, the petitioner is in a writ petition before this Court. 2. As per the facts on record, an auction was conducted for the sale of Grain Shops on 04.10.1991 by the Administrator. The petitioner was the highest bidder of the plot No.216 for Rs.4,36,000/-. The petitioner deposited 25% of the bid money at the spot through demand draft. It has further come on record that the petitioner was also the highest bidder of three other shops i.e. shop Nos.217, 218 and 219. The petitioner did not deposit the earnest money in respect of these three plots. The Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab passed an order on 04.08.1994 holding that there is no power to cancel the allotment of plots without adopting the procedure laid down under Section 13 of the Punjab New Mandi Townships (Development of Regulation) Act, 1960 (in short ‘the Act’). It was found that Section 13 of the Act would not be applicable as the petitioner has not committed any default. 3. In respect of Plot No.216, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that due to the terrorist threats and death of brother-in-law of the petitioner, the petitioner could not deposit the balance amount of sale consideration, which led the petitioner to submit the application (Annexure P- 5) to seek refund of the full payment on 03.02.1992. Considering the said request, the Administrator passed an order dated 06.02.1992 of resumption under Section 13(3) of the Act after deducting 10% of the consideration money. The cheque for an amount of Rs.64,889 was also sent along with the said order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain judgments to contend that since no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing an order on 06.02.1992, therefore, the action of cancellation of the plot is not tenable. 5. The cheque for an amount of Rs.64,889 was also sent along with the said order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain judgments to contend that since no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing an order on 06.02.1992, therefore, the action of cancellation of the plot is not tenable. 5. We do not find any merit in the arguments raised. The request of the petitioner was for withdrawal of the entire consideration amount. Though the Administrator has passed an order to deduct 10% of the amount deposited but the Learned Financial Commissioner has set aside the illegality in the order while ordering to refund the entire amount deposited by the Petitioner. Similarly the argument that if the other three plots can be restored to the petitioner, where the petitioner has not even deposited 25% of the amount, there is no reason as to why plot in question did not restore to the petitioner, is again without any substance. 6. We are not examining the legality or validity of the order passed by the Administrator on 06.04.1994, whereby three shops No.217, 218 and 219 were restored. However, in respect of the present case, it transpires that the petitioner has not deposited the balance consideration amount, which is required to be deposited either within thirty days of the allotment without interest or in six half yearly installment together with interest. The petitioner had made unequivocal request for withdrawal of the amount deposited on 03.02.1992. 7. The order dated 06.02.1992 was passed on the request of the petitioner to seek refund of the amount. Once the petitioner himself has sought refund of the amount, the procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the Act for resumption of the plot could not be made applicable. It was rightly not done so. The Petitioner has not sought to withdraw his request to surrender plot at any time before the order was passed by the Financial Commissioner directing the refund of the entire amount. Therefore, the plot has not been resumed but in fact, the petitioner has been permitted to withdraw from the contractual obligations as per his request. Therefore, once offer for withdrawal has been made, the same stands accepted as per the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. 8. Another argument raised is that the amount deposited by the petitioner should be refunded to him with interest. Therefore, once offer for withdrawal has been made, the same stands accepted as per the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. 8. Another argument raised is that the amount deposited by the petitioner should be refunded to him with interest. We find that there was an order of status quo regarding plot No.216 passed on 20.01.1995. The respondents have not been permitted by the petitioner to make use of the said plot even after surrender. By depriving the respondents the use of the said plot, the Petitioner has caused loss to the public exchequer. Therefore, we do not find any reason to grant interest on the amount refunded to the petitioner. 9. In view thereof, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, warranting interference in the writ jurisdiction of this court. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ————————