JUDGMENT

G.P. Mathur, J.-This special leave petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 1.4.2002 of High Court of Punjab and Haryana by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner was allotted a semi-industrial plot bearing No. 389 in Sector 44-D, Chandigarh in an auction held on 25.2.1990 on a total premium of Rs. 12,75,000/- out of which he paid 25% of the amount after the fall of the hammer. In terms of the allotment letter dated 26.4.1990, he was required to deposit the balance amount in three yearly instalments of Rs. 3,64,379/- each by 25th February of the years 1991, 1992 and 1993. By the same letter, he was authorised to take possession of the plot which was ultimately given to him on 23.5.1990. The petitioner did not deposit the yearly instalments which were due and accordingly notices were issued to him directing him to deposit the amount along with ground rent. The Assistant Estate Officer accordingly passed an order on 12.8.1993 holding the petitioner to be a defaulter and further imposed 25% penalty on due amount of ground rent. Since the petitioner did not deposit the amount, a second order was passed on 28.12.1994 imposing 100% penalty on due amount of ground rent. Finally, the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising powers under Rule 12(3) of the Chandigarh Leasehold (Sites and Building) Rules, 1973, passed an order on 6.11.1996 cancelling the lease of the plot, as the petitioner did not deposit any one of the yearly instalments which had fallen due on 25th February of the years 1991, 1992 and 1993. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Estate Officer before the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh. The Chief Administrator after hearing the parties held that though the petitioner had taken the possession of the plot on 23.5.1990 but had not deposited anything towards the balance amount of instalment and as such an amount of Rs. 31.43 lakhs was outstanding against him. In such circumstances, the Assistant Estate Officer was justified in cancelling the lease of the plot allotted in favour of the petitioner. The appeal was accordingly dismissed on 10.11.1998.

3. The petitioner then preferred a revision before the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh under Rule 22(3) of Chandigarh Leasehold (Sites and Building) Rules, 1973. At the time of the hearing, an offer was made by the petitioner that he would deposit Rs. 12 lakhs on the same day. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the revisional authority, vide order dated 15.9.1999, set aside the order of cancellation of lease subject to the condition that the petitioner deposited Rs. 12 lakhs before the Estate Officer on the same day and the balance amount within six months. The penalty imposed by the Estate Officer was also reduced to half. The petitioner then deposited Rs. 12 lakhs and a further sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- before the Estate Officer on 15.12.1999. He also deposited Rs. 20,000/- towards ground rent on 24.2.2000.

4. It appears that the petitioner did not deposit any other amount thereafter and as a result, the authorities again initiated proceedings for cancellation of the lease and for realization of the amount.

5. At this stage, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in the High Court on 16.7.2001 alleging that the respondents were charging interest at the rate of 15% and 24% which was contrary to the contractual rate of interest as mentioned in the allotment letter and consequently the order of cancellation of lease and imposition of penalty was illegal. The High Court passed an interim order on 15.10.2001 which reads as under :

"Learned counsel for the petitioner states that only one opportunity may be given to the petitioner to clear the entire dues.

In view of the above, notice of motion for 25.3.2002. The petitioner is dir