IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP No.18025 of 2015

Date of decision: 03.10.2019

Bhupesh and others

..Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

..Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL

Present:

Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG, Haryana

for respondent No.1-State.

Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advocate for

Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate

for respondents No.2 and 3.

***

Daya Chaudhary, J.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of respondent-

authorities, whereby, they have been held liable to pay simple interest @

15% per annum and penal interest @ 4% per annum to be calculated from

the date of allotment till the date of depositing the same and also to pay

extension fee.

The petitioners have also prayed for waiving off interest as

basic amenities/facilities were not provided and interest cannot be imposed

upon them.

Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition

are that the petitioners were allotted plots in the year 2002. There were

certain terms and conditions as mentioned in the allotment letters. As per

NEETU RANI

2019.10.16 10:12

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

CWP No.18025 of 2015

-2-

condition No.4 of the allotment letter, the allottees were having two options

in making payment i.e. (i) 25% of the amount at the time of issuance of

allotment letter and remaining 75% within a period of 30 days of the

allotment; (ii) 25% of the amount at the time of issuance of allotment letter

and remaining 75% in six half yearly installments @ 15% interest. As per

condition No.5 of the allotment letter, in case, the allottee failed to deposit

the installments within the stipulated period, then penal interest @ 4% per

annum was to be charged. As per condition No.14 of the allotment letter, the

allottees were to construct the building as per the approved plan/design

within a period of two years from the date of possession of plot, which

could be extended further by the Chairman, Market Committee upto the

maximum period of three years on payment of extension fee of Rs.10,000/-,

Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/- for first, second and third year of extension,

respectively.

The petitioners opted to make payment as per condition No.4 of

the allotment letter but the payments were not made as per schedule on the

ground that basic amenities were not provided. Only petitioner No.1 paid

full principal amount. The petitioners being aggrieved with the action of

respondent-authorities have approached this Court for waiving off interest

as claimed in orders (Annexures P-11 to P-15) on the ground that the Chief

Administrator of Marketing Board vide letter dated 17.04.2001 had

approved waiving off interest to the allottees of other Market Committee

under the similar circumstances.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing his case has

also relied upon judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in

NEETU RANI

2019.10.16 10:12

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

CWP No.18025 of 2015

-3-

CWP No.18237 of 2001 titled as Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and

others decided on 15.05.2002 and other instances whereby the amount of

interest has been waived off on the ground that the basic amenities were not

provided. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners are entitled for

waiving off the interest as construction was completed within a period of

two years but basic amenities were not provided.

Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by

learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners cannot

claim parity with those allottees, in whose case, the interest was waived off.

The answering respondent provided all the basic amenities but it was only

the petitioners, who failed to construct the shops within the stipulated

pe