202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25409-2015 Date of decision: 08.09.2025 M/s Shree Samjhainath Designer Industries through its partner ...Petitioner Vs.

Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. S.K.Jain, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conferencing).

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate and Mr. Vicky Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent-HSIIDC.

***

DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J .

This petition has been filed seeking modification of the order dated 21.05.2014 (Annexure P-8) passed by the respondent No.5, whereby the amount of Rs.46,39,974/- was recovered from the petitioner as interest on delayed payment of installments, and granting 8% simple interest instead of 15% (half-yearly basis) on the refunded amount, along with deduction of Rs.10,32,661/- on account of TDS.

2. The facts emerging from the pleadings of this case are that in 2008, the respondent-corporation launched a scheme under the Estate Management Procedure, 2005, and the State Government Industrial Policy, 2005, for establishing industrial projects in the Industrial Estate, IMT, Manesar, District Gurgaon. The petitioner applied for an industrial plot measuring 4050 sqm at Rs.9,000/- per sqm, which was allotted to the petitioner in October 2008. Initially, 35% of the total cost of the plot, approximately Rs. 1,27,57,500/-, was deposited by the petitioner, while the remaining 65% was to be paid in five equal yearly installments, including principal and interest, from the date of the offer of possession, as per the schedule of payment in the letter of allotment dated 16.10.2008 (Annexure P-1). It is pleaded that despite depositing the full amount, the respondents No.3 to 5 failed to deliver possession of the plot to the petitioner. A representation dated 30.09.2011 seeking delivery of possession was submitted, along with subsequent representations dated 12.10.2011, 19.01.2012, and reminders dated 08.02.2012 and 10.03.2012 (Annexure P- 4) (colly). Subsequently, a representation dated 18.04.2012, requesting possession and waiving interest on installments due to lack of basic amenities such as road facilities, sewerage, electricity, and water was submitted. Instead of considering this request, a show-cause notice dated 30.05.2012 (Annexure P-5) for non- payment of dues was served on the petitioner. Later, a representation dated 07.11.2012 (Annexure P-6) was submitted, requesting either to make refund of the amount paid with interest or, alternatively, the allotment of a smaller plot of 2300 sqm for setting up an automatic computerized Saree Embroidery Unit. The request for a smaller plot instead of plot No. 412 was rejected by respondents No. 3 to 5 without any opportunity of hearing, vide a letter/order dated 21.05.2014 (Annexure P-8) and ordered the refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner with simple interest at 8% per annum. As a result, the respondents No.3 to 5 refunded Rs. 4,41,31,470/-, which was accepted by the petitioner under protest. The petitioner also filed a consumer complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, which was withdrawn with liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate court of law, by order dated 26.03.2015 (Annexure P- 11). Aggrieved by the order dated 21.05.2014 (Annexure P- 8), whereby the amount paid by the petitioner as the cost of the plot was refunded, the same has been challenged through this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that since respondents No.3 to 5 failed to deliver possession of the plot in question and did not provide necessary infrastructure facilities such as roads, water supply, electricity, and sewerage, hence their actions have breached the terms of the agreement dated 16.08.2010, the same constitutes a breach of contract by the respondents No.3 to 5. He submits that the unfairne