JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner (Vijender Singh) assails the order dated 11.05.2016 (Annexure P-1) vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 30.05.2017 (Annexure P-2) vide which the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the appellant order was dismissed. The petitioner also prays for the issuance of a mandamus directing the respondents to give back the possession of the resumed property after receiving the full and final payment from the petitioner as per policy.

2. Booth No.14 of the Public Works Department (B&R)Work Shop, Jind was allotted to the petitioner on 17.07.2001 in an open auction. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 2,80,000/-. 25% of the amount was deposited but the petitioner was unable to deposit the remaining 75% amount. Despite issuance of notices, the said amount was not deposited. It has been averred that the petitioner visited the office of the respondents repeatedly to pay the balance amount but the respondents refused to accept the amount stating that the petitioner was late in depositing the same amount.

3. The booth was resumed vide order dated 12.03.2004. An appeal was preferred against the resumption order but was dismissed on 11.05.2016 (Annexure P-1). A revision petition was preferred against the appellate order but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2017 (Annexure P-2). A legal notice dated 16.03.2018 was also issued calling upon the respondents to accept the balance amount but the same also did not evoke any response.

4. The petitioner has averred that in similarly situated matters, the requests of the allottees had been allowed and they had been permitted to deposit the outstanding amount. Certain orders have been placed on record as Annexures P-4 and P-5. Judgments of this Court have also been relied upon and the same have been placed on record as Annexures P-6 and P-7. It is the case of the petitioner that these judgments were upheld by the Supreme Court of India vide order dated 08.09.2014 (Annexure P-8).

5. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. In the written statement filed by respondents No.3 and 4, certain preliminary objections have been raised. It has been averred that the resumption order was passed on 12.03.2004 and the appeal was filed in 12.01.2016 without any explanation for the delay of more than 11 years in filing the appeal. It has also been averred that the petitioner is a defaulter and that in view of his persistent default, the booth in question has been rightly resumed as after deposit of 25% of the price, no further amount was deposited.

6. On merits, the details of the notices issued by the respondents to the petitioner on account of non-depositing the outstanding amount have been given. It has been averred that the appellate and revisional orders are legal and valid. As regards reliance placed by the petitioner on other cases, it has been averred that the said cases were not similar but were having different facts.

7. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable as the authorities did not consider the matter from the right perspective. Learned counsel referred to the appellate order and the revisional order and submitted that the said orders are not sustainable. It was also submitted that the petitioner is willing to clear the entire outstanding amount with interest as per policy.

9. Per contra, it was submitted by learned counsel representing respondents that there is no illegality in the impugned orders.

10. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

11. The booth in question was allotted to the petitioner on 17.07.2001 in an open auction. For reasons best known to the petitioner, the allotment letter has not been placed on record. Be that as it may, certain dates can be extracted from the petition and the reply. The allotment was made on 17