JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)

Both these writ petitions are being decided by a common judgement as separate petitions have been filed by Husband & Wife against the award dated 26.07.2018 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Bhiwani in relation to two different Booth numbers owned by the petitioners. While CWP-25844-2018 has been preferred against Booth No. 48 situated in City Centre, Bhiwani; CWP-25922-2018 relates to Booth No. 47. The grounds of challenge & reasons for dismissal remain the same.

2. For the facility of reference, facts have been extracted from CWP-25844-2018. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he was allotted Booth No. 48 at City Centre, Bhiwani by the respondent-HSVP vide allotment letter No.6062 dated 16.09.2008. The tentative price of the plot was Rs. 15,61,000/- and the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,56,100/- as bid money vide receipt No. 15222 dated 29.08.2008. Thereafter, the additional amount of Rs.2,34,150/- was also deposited by the petitioner vide receipt No. 16227 dated 03.11.2008 taking the total deposited amount to the extent of 25% of the tentative price of the Booth. The petitioner contends that an assurance was given to the petitioner at the time of allotment of the booth that the site would be developed very soon and offer of possession in respect of the booth/plot will be made immediately on completion of development work at the spot which had not been completed at the time of allotment and the basic amenities were not provided at the spot. Several representations/requests were sent by the petitioner to develop the sites and to provide the basic amenities, however, no heed was paid to such requests and the area in question was not developed. The possession was also not offered by the respondents. Resultantly, the petitioner stopped the remittance of the balance instalments. It is further averred that a high tension electric wire was also passing through the area of the booth/plot in question and the respondent was requested to remove the high tension electric wire so that he could commence the construction work. Reference was made to various letters/communication dated 10.02.2012, 08.05.2012, 24.07.2012, 20.11.2012 and 24.06.2013 which have been sent to higher authorities as well. No action was taken on the same and the petitioner even approached the Chief Administrator, HUDA for seeking redressal of his grievance. The respondents, however, demanded an interest for delayed deposit of the money, after the possession of the plot was offered on 22.06.2015. The petitioner claims that he has requested the respondent-authorities to waive off the interest on the instalments as there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-authorities by not providing the basic amenities on the spot and the respondent itself not being in a position to offer possession of the plot on account of the high tension wire having been erected over the plot in question. The authorities failed to offer the physical possession of the plot on the spot for a period of 07 years, the petitioner was restrained from raising construction on the said plot/booth or to smoothly run his business operations timely, resulting in huge financial losses. It was claimed that a sum of Rs. 11,70,750/- had been shown as outstanding amount of instalment and a sum of Rs. 8,65,962/- was shown payable as interest on the defaulting amount. It is averred that the above said demand was not justified and that the petitioner is agg