(1) THE appellant herein was allotted an Industrial plot bearing No. 5-B situated in Sector 15A at Faridabad by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority). The order of allotment indicated that in case of default of payment of instalments towards the final price, the interest at the rate of 10% shall be charged. It appears that the appellant committed default in payment of instalments, with the result the Estate Officer, Faridabad by an order dated 7-4-1995 in exercise of power under S. 17(4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act resumed the plot of land and also forfeited a sum of Rs.1.90 lakhs deposited by the appellant. The appellant aggrieved against the order of the Estate Officer preferred an appeal before the Administrator of the Authority. The said appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and prayed for quashing of the order passed by the Estate Officer and that of the Administrator rejecting his appeal. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Authority to release the land In favour of the appellant on payment of the price and also the interest at the rate of 10%. The Authority aggrieved against the said judgment of the High Court filed C.A. No. 13187 of 1996 before this Court. This Court passed the following order :

"In the absence of any procedural irregularity, the High Court had no jurisdiction to Interfere in the matter. The High Court also failed to notice that the respondent is guilty of not paying the instalments as undertaken by him. By interfering on the basis of unverified and unsubstantiated plea of financial stringency, the Court would be encouraging contumacious conduct and breach of undertakings. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. No costs."

(2) AFTER the aforesaid judgment was passed, the appellant filed an application for clarification of the order on the premise that while dictating the aforesaid order some observations made by the Court were not taken down by the Court Master. The Court after hearing both the sides ordered that the clarification be added in the penultimate paragraph of the order dated 23-10-1996. The clarificatory order reads as thus :

"Both the counsel state that there has been an omission in the order of this Court which was actually dictated in the Court on the day the S.L.P. was disposed of. The direction does not find a place in the order as ultimately transcribed and issued. It is submitted that the direction given by this Court was that if the respondent pays the entire arrears as demanded by HUDA within a-period of three months, the forfeiture effected by HUDA shall not take effect. The said sentence shall be added towards the end of the penultimate paragraph. Ordered accordingly."

(3) SINCE the clarification order passed by this Court on 4th December, 1996 did not find place in the earlier order, the Estate Officer of the Authority made a demand from the appellant at an enhanced rate of Interest i.e. 18%. The appellant deposited the money as demanded under protest. However, the appellant challenged the demand of Interest at the rate of 18% by means of a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The case of the appellant was that the Authority is entitled to charge interest at the rate of 10%. However, the said petition was dismissed and against the said judgment the appellant has filed the present appeal.

(4) LEARNED counsel, appearing for the appellant, urged that the consistent view of the High Court has been that where an allottee has committed default in payment of Instalment, the Authority was made to charge interest at the rate of 10% and not 18%. It is also urged that the judgment of the High Court has been upheld by this Court. Learned coun