Satish Kumar Arya vs State of Haryana - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 1028

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1028

ARUN PALLI, VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Satish Kumar Arya – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Balraj Singh, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana and Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate
Mr. Maheshinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3.

JUDGMENT

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

Being the highest bidder, built up Booth No. 110, Sector-55, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the disputed booth) was allotted to the petitioner on 05.11.2000 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 9,70,000/- (rupees nine lakhs seventy thousand). Since the petitioner defaulted and did not make payments in time, the disputed booth was resumed vide order dated 26.05.2004 (Annexure P-3). Appeal against the said order was allowed vide order dated 28.01.2014 (Annexure P-16) and the resumption order was set aside. However, a revision petition was preferred by the respondents against the said order which was allowed on 16.05.2017 setting aside the appellate order and restoring the order of resumption. It is this order that has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. The case set out by the petitioner is that he had already deposited 35.92% of the total sale consideration when the disputed booth was resumed and that the resumption was ordered in a mechanical manner without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to present his case for at no point of time was any show-cause notice served upon the petitioner. It has been averred th