Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: - Feeling aggrieved against the impugned demand notice dated 16.5.2008 (Annexure P-9), for payment of outstanding amount of External Development Charges (‘EDC’ for short), order dated 26.3.2009 (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent no.2 dismissing the representation of the petitioner-society against the demand notice and also the order dated 7.3.2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the appellate authority-respondent no.1, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order Annexure P-2, the petitioner has approached this court by way of instant petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the demand notice (Annexure P-9), order Annexure P-2 as well as order Annexure P-1, noted hereinabove.

2. The relevant facts of the case necessary for disposal of the controversy involved herein may be noted briefly.

3. The petitioner-society came to be registered with the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, on 6.11.1979 having 770 members coming from all walks of life. The primary object of the society was to set up a residential colony for its members. To achieve its object, the society purchased 100.23 acres of land in village Perhawar District Rohtak, so as to construct the residential colony.

4. The petitioner-society applied for grant of licence as per the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act,1975 (‘1975 Act’ for short). The letter of intent was issued in favour of the petitioner-society by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh-respondent no.2, vide letter dated 20.11.2002 (Annexure R-2). Licence No.1 of 2003 for an area measuring 100.23 acres was issued in favour of the petitionersociety, vide letter dated 2.1.2003 (Annexure P-4). This licence was issued subject to certain terms and conditions including the condition of payment of EDC.

5. Accordingly, a bi-lateral agreement dated 2.1.2003 (Annexure P-5) was executed between the parties. Another agreement on prescribed format LC-IV was also executed vide Annexure P-6, in terms of Rule 11 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976 (‘1976 Rules’ for short), putting down detailed terms and conditions therein. It is further pleaded case of the petitioner-society that its licence was amended and fresh licence was granted on 28.1.2004, vide Annexure P-7 for an area of 97.91 acres. It was issued after de-licencing 2.32 acres licenced land which was acquired by the Irrigation Department and the revised schedule of land in respect of Licence no.1 of 2003 was issued. Consequently, revised service plan/estimates of external development works, in respect of the residential colony of the petitioner-society measuring 97.91 acres was approved, vide communication dated 11.10.2004 (Annexure P-8).

6. The demand of EDC was raised by respondent no.2, vide demand notice dated 16.5.2008 (Annexure P-9), which was challenged by the petitioner-society before this court by way of CWP No.19774 of 2008. The writ petition was disposed of, permitting the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation raising all its grievances within a period of two weeks’ and respondent no.2 was directed to consider the same by passing a speaking order within one month. The amount found due in accordance with the decision on the representation was permitted to be recovered, thereafter. The writ petition came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 27.11.2008 (Annexure P-10).

7. The petitioner-society submitted its representation dated 10.12.2008, which was considered by respondent no.3 and the impugned order dated 26.3.2009 (Annexure P-2) was passed. Dis-satisfied with the order passed by respondent no.3, petitioner-society filed its appeal before the appellate authority and the same was dismissed, vide order dated 7.3.2011 (Annexure P-1). Thus, the pe