JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

Challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 30.07.2004 (Annexure P-23) which was passed by respondent No.1 wherein the revision filed arising out of the consequential proceedings has been dismissed and the said respondent did not exercise the revisional powers in favour of the petitioner. The conclusion arrived at rightly was that since resumption order had become final way back on 28.12.1992, there was no scope for interference in the order passed by the Administrator, HUDA dated 16.10.2003 regarding booth No.24, Sector 7, Panchkula.

2. It is a matter of fact that the booth in question was sealed on 08.01.2017. Since the said action is also subject matter of challenge, the writ petition was thereafter filed only on 10.12.2017 and there was a unexplained delay of 14 years in challenging the last order passed by the authority. Resultantly, the respondents have raised serious objections on the ground of limitation also that the writ petition filed after 14 years is not maintainable and the same is hopelessly time-barred which in our considered opinion, cannot be brushed aside.

3. However, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the interim observations made on 02.02.2018 that the booth can be restored in favour of the petitioner subject to her payment of penal interest/penalty and other charges though the writ petition suffers from unexplained and inordinate delay and laches.

4. A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show one Varinder Kumar was allotted the booth in question on 21.08.1986 (Annexure P-1). The husband of the petitioner had taken permission for re-allotment on 20.03.1989 (Annexure P-6) and was liable to pay the balance 6 instalments of Rs.2,04,000/- along with interest since the earlier allottee had deposited the 4 instalments in question. Various notices were issued under Section 17 of the HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT , 1977 (for short, the 'Act') for the outstanding amounts between 1989- 91 and as per the last notice dated 24.11.1992, a sum of Rs.2,23,990/- was due. Keeping in view the fact that not even a single penny had been deposited against the outstanding dues after 03.01.1989, the booth was resumed on 28.12.1992 (Annexure P-8) and the forfeiture of Rs.42,445/- already deposited was also ordered by the Estate Officer.

5. The appeal was dismissed by the Administrator on 27.04.1994 (Annexure P-9) by relying upon condition No.5 of the allotment letter that in default of payment of instalments, interest could be levied which was recoverable and resumption could be effected. In revision, the petitioner also met no success and the same was dismissed on 26.09.1995 (Annexure P-10) on the ground that there was no jurisdictional error and the principles of natural justice had been followed. A complaint was also filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula by the petitioner and her husband that they were ready and willing to deposit the entire amount along with interest and therefore, they be asked not to vacate the booth site. The same was dismissed on 23.10.2002 (Annexure P-12). A suit was filed for permanent injunction wherein status quo was also granted in their favour on 19.06.2003.

6. The factum of delay has now been sought to be explained that a writ petition was prepared in the year 2004 but was never listed and the drafted petition is appended as Annexure P-25. Counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that the resumption orders should be interfe