SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(P&H) 1257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
M/s Hitkari Welfare Society — Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana And Others (2) Triveni Faridabad Allottees Association — Respondent
CWP No.5904 of 2019 (O&M), CWP No.7778 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided on : 14-05-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Saranjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.5904 of 2019
Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant in CWP No.7778 of 2019
Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Abhishek Sanghi, Advocate, for respondents no.2 and 3. Mr. Anand Chhibber, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for respondents no.4 and 5

The need for exhausting the statutory remedy before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court and the importance of candid disclosure of the availability of the remedy of appeal or revision under the Act.

Headnote:

Migration - Town & Country Planning - Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 - Licences 138 of 2008 and 66 of 2018 - The court allowed the withdrawal of the first petition and the second petition was also allowed to be withdrawn to avail the remedy of appeal or revision under Section 19 of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitions challenged the migration of a project from a Group Housing Project to a Residential Plotted Colony, based on the issuance of licences 138 of 2008 and 66 of 2018. The petitioner, a Society registered under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012, alleged that the migration was illegal and violated policies issued by the Town & Country Planning department. The petitioner also sought an investigation into the affairs of the respondent and the officials of Punjab National Bank for alleged connivance.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the withdrawal of the first petition and the second petition was also allowed to be withdrawn to avail the remedy of appeal or revision under Section 19 of the Act.

Issues: The issues involved the legality of the migration from a Group Housing Project to a Residential Plotted Colony, the alleged violation of policies, and the need for an investigation into the affairs of the respondent and the officials of Punjab National Bank.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, being an association of educated people, should have exhausted the remedy provided under the statute before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court. The court also emphasized the need for candid disclosure of the availability of the remedy of appeal or revision under the Act.

Final Decision: The first petition was allowed to be withdrawn, and the second petition was also allowed to be withdrawn to avail the remedy of appeal or revision under Section 19 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

This order sall dispose of two petitions bearing CWP No.5904 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the "first petition") and CWP No.7778 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the "second petition") because the prayers made by the petitioner(s) and the issues involved in both the cases are almost identical inasmuch as in both the petitions, the challenge has been laid to the order-passed by the Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana (DTCP) on 25.09.2018, by which he has permitted respondent no.3 to migrate the licence No. 138 of 2008 from a Group Housing Project to a Residential Plotted Colony. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.5904 of 2019.

2. This petition is filed by a Society, which is allegedly registered under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012, through its Secretary Sh. Narotam Chand Gautam, who has allegedly been authorized by the Society by way of a resolution dated 08.09.2017 passed by the Board of Governors of the society, to file the present petition.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts given in the petition are that respondent no.2 (DTCP) had issued a Letter of Intent (Lol) in favour of M/s Triveni Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (TFIPL), M/s. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Ferrous Alloys Forgings Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Sumit Mittal (respondent no.4 herein) for developing a Group Housing Colony on land measuring 11.706 acres falling in the revenue estates of village Riwazpur and village Bhupani in residential Sector 89, Faridabad. Subsequent to the issuance of the Lol, a Licence No.138 of 2008 dated 02.07.2008, which was valid upto 01.07.2010, was issued by the DTCP in their favour. Subsequent thereto, respondents no.4 and 5, who are Directors of the TFIPL, submitted letter dated 17.07.2008 to the DTCP in order to seek transfer of Licence No.138 of 2008 in favour of their sister concern, i.e. M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. (TIDCO). While the aforesaid request was pending consideration before the DTCP, the TIDCO, on the basis of some agreement executed in the year 2007 between it and the licencees, had launched a Group Housing Project underthe name and style of Triveni Signature-II in Sector 89, Faridabad and advertised 878 flats for allotment to the members of the public, out of which as many as 425 flats were allotted and money in respect thereof was received by the TIDCO. It is averred that though the application dated 17.07.2008 of the TFIPLwas not allowed but the department of DTCP issued a letter to the Licencee to deposit an amount of Rs. 178.21 lacs on account of External Development Charges (EDC) against Licence No. 138 of 2008, whereas a request was reiterated on behalf of the TFIPL on 10.01.2009 for seeking transfer of Licence No. 138 of 2008 in favour of TIDCO.

4. Since there were allegedly some defaults committed by the TIDCO in honouring the commitments made to the allottees of its projects including but not limited to Triveni Signature-II in Sector 89, Faridabad and other Group Housing Projects of TIDCO in respect of the land falling in Licence Nos.34 to 36 of 2007 in Sector 89, Faridabad and Licence Nos.37-39 of 2007 in respect of the land falling in Sector 78, Faridabad, a complaint was made by one Ravi Sachdeva, on the basis of which FIR No.234 dated 24.12.2008 was registered against TIDCO and its Directors under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC at the Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi. Subsequent to the registration of aforesaid FIR, an application for anticipatory bail was filed by one B.N. Gupta along with Sumit Mittal and Madhur Mittal (respondents no.4 and 5 herein) before the Delhi High Court. In the said bail application, as per index supplied to the Court, Sr. No.5 dealt with Annexure-A (colly), i.e. copy of details of the land purchased by the Company for its project at Krishna Vatika Mathura Vrindaban, Sector-78, Faridabad for Group Housing, village Mehrauli Ghaziaba

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
              whatsapp-icon Back to top