Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Revisional Authority -Cum- Financial ... on 30 April, 2012
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.N.Jindal
CWP No.1610 of 2008 1
IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 30.04.2012
CWP No.1610 of 2008
Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon ...Petitioner
Vs.
Revisional Authority -cum- Financial Commissioner ...Respondents
and Secretary & another
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr. K.K.Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the orders dated 22.06.2003 (Annexure P-8) and 31.05.2007 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Town & Country Planning, Haryana, exercising the powers of the State Government.
The petitioner is a local authority established under the Haryana Urban Development Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act'). The facts leading to challenge to the aforesaid orders are that the petitioner invited applications for allotment of institutional plots in Sector 44, Gurgaon. Respondent No.2 submitted an application for allotment of institutional plot of the size measuring 1/4 acre (1196 sq. yards) in Sector 44, Gurgaon along with earnest money of Rs.5,98,000/-. The said respondent was called to appear CWP No.1610 of 2008 2 before the Interview Committee on 09.02.2001. On the basis of documents, the Interview Committee found respondent No.2 to be eligible for including its name in the draw of lots. The draw of lots for the allotment of industrial plot was held on 12.04.2001 after the said respondent was informed vide letter dated 5.4.2001 that draw of lots shall take place on 12.4.2001. In the draw plot No.100, Sector 44, Gurgaon was allotted to respondent No.2. The allotment letter dated 24.04.2001 (Annexure P-4) was issued to respondent No.2 calling upon the said respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.8,97,000/- within 30 days from the date of issue of letter, which along with the amount of Rs.5,98,000/- will constitute 25% of the total tentative price. The petitioner also informed that the said respondent can refuse the allotment within 30 days, failing which the allotment shall stand cancelled and the earnest money forfeited. The balance 75% i.e. Rs.44,95,000/- could be paid in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter or in four half yearly installments with interest. The relevant clauses in the allotment letter reads as under:
"4. In case you refuse to accept this allotment, you shall communicate your refusal by a registered letter within 30 days from the date of allotment letter, failing which this allotment shall stand cancelled and the earnest money deposited by you shall be forfeited to the authority and you shall have no claim for damages.
5. In case you accept this allotment, please sent your acceptance by registered post along with an amount of Rs.8,97,000/- within 30 days from the date of issue of this allotment letter, which together with an amount of Rs.5,98,000/- paid by you along with your application form as earnest money, will constitute 25% per cent of the total tentative price.
6. The balance amount i.e. Rs.44,95,000/- of the above tentative price of the plot/building can be paid in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter or in four half yearly CWP No.1610 of 2008 3 installments. The first installment will fall due after the expiry of six months of the date of issue of this letter.
The unpaid amount of installments will carry an interest @ 18% p.a. and in case of any delay in the payment on the due date an additional penal interest of 3% p.a. making the total payable interest as 21% shall be chargeable."
Respondent No.2 neither refused the allotment within 30 days nor remitted an amount of Rs.8,97,000/- within the said period. Instead respondent No.2 is said to have sent a letter dated 23.05.2001 acknowledging the receipt of letter of allotment and conveyed that it needed corner plot with two sides open, whereas the plot allotted to it is sandwiched between two plots with only one side open. Respondent No.2 sought corner plot No.101 or 102. It was communicated that the Management will review its decision whether to retain or surrender in case the corner plot cannot be made available. Admittedly, the petitioner did not respond to such letter. Later on, the Respondent No.2 sent a letter on 19.10.2001 enclosing allotment letter in original, memo for interview in original, memo for allotment in original and photocopy of application form, wherein it made the following request:
"It is with reference to our letter dated 23rd May, 2001, wherein we had requested for the allotment of a corner plot and since there has been no response from your side, the management of the Company has decided to surrender the plot and wait for a better opportunity in your further expansion.
It is an such requested that the earnest money deposited by us please be remitted in our favour at the earliest which was paid by us vide draft No.158275 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank for Rs.5,98,000/- dated 22.11.2000."
The said communication was accompanied with an affidavit of CWP No.1610 of 2008 4 the Managing Director of respondent No.2. However, on 11.12.2001 in response to the above mentioned communication of the said respondent, 10% of the earnest money was forfeited. The relevant extract is as under:
"Reference: Your letter No.NIL dated 19.10.2001.
Whereas, institutional plot No.100, Sector 44, Gurgaon was allotted to you vide this office memo No.1379 dated 24.04.2001 as per terms and conditions of allotment letter No.4, you were requested to deposit 15% amount within 30 days from the date of issue of this letter i.e. Upto 23.05.2001, but you have failed to do so. Therefore, the allotment of the above plot is cancelled and 10% earnest money deposited against the plot is hereby forfeited in favour of the authority."
Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department, Haryana. In such appeal, the learned Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department, Haryana, remitted the case to the Administrator with the following directions:
"...Consequently, I remand the case to the Administrator with the direction to consider the possibility of allotment of alternative site as per rules as demanded by the petitioner. If it is found that it is not possible to allot alternative site as demanded by the petitioner, then the original plot allotted to the petitioner is to be restored if the allottee deposits all the outsanding amount alongwith interest etc. as per HUDA policy. The parties are directed to appear before Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon on 22 July, 2003 for further proceedings in the case."
In terms of the aforesaid order, the Administrator, Gurgaon exercising the powers of the Chief Administrator found that the letter dated 23.05.2001 has not been received by the HUDA and there is no provision for change of site. Respondent No.2 has failed to deposit 15% of the amount CWP No.1610 of 2008 5 and violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and, therefore, the earnest money stands forfeited. It was also found that since the allotment of the plot numbers was done by holding a mini draw on 12.04.2001, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to be considered for alternative plot.
Respondent No.2 filed revision against the said order before the State Government. In the said revision, it was ordered by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town & country Planning Department, Haryana that decision of the Revisional Authority dated 22.06.2003 be implemented and the outstanding dues along with interest as per the HUDA policy be deposited within 30 days from the date so conveyed.
The respondent No.2 sent an amount of Rs. Rs.1,04,72,050/- as cost of the plot and Rs.26,000/- as extension fee vide letter dated 26.07.2007. The said instrument of payment was returned as it was decided to file the present petition. A Division Bench of this Court ordered the stay of the orders dated 22.06.2003 and 31.05.2007 on 27.03.2008. On 31.03.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner - HUDA has sought time to have instructions regarding the current allotment price. It was on 12.01.2011, the petitioner placed on record the current allotment price. On 06.05.2011, learned counsel for respondent No.2 made a statement that the respondent is willing to pay current allotment price, which is already on record. The counsel for the petitioner sought time to have instructions in the form of an affidavit of the competent authority. An affidavit dated 29.8.2011 has been filed that it is not possible to allot a plot to respondent No.2 at the CWP No.1610 of 2008 6 current allotment price. In view of the said fact, we have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that no concluded contract came into existence, as respondent No.2 failed to accept the offer made in the letter of allotment dated 24.04.2001 within the time granted. Since the offer was not accepted, therefore, respondent No.2 could not invoke the jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 30 of the Act. There was no order, which could be challenged by the respondent No 2 nor the statute contemplated any appeal against such action. An appeal or revision can be filed only in terms of the provisions of the statute and not otherwise. Therefore, the orders (Annexure P-8 & P-10) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department, Haryana are illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Aruna Luthra Vs. State of Haryana 1987 (2) PLR 124; H.Paul & Company Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & others 2002 HRR 244; Smt. Saroj Ahlawat Vs. State of Haryana & others (CWP No.5371 of 2008 decided on 20.05.2008); Chaman Lal Singhal Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & others (2009) 4 SCC 369 and Greater Mohali Area Development Authority case (supra) and others Vs. Manju Jain and others, (2010) 9 SCC 157 apart from number of judgments given by this Bench in recent past.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently argued that the petitioner cannot challenge the orders passed by CWP No.1610 of 2008 7 the State Government, as such orders are final in terms of Section 50 of the Act. The order passed by the State Government (Annexures P-8) has not challenged, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to dispute such order in the present writ petition. It is also argued that the petitioner can not be permiitted to challenge the orders passed by the State Government as, it is bound by the directions of the State. It is argued that petitioner has not disclosed the amount, which was deposited by respondent No.2 and in the absence of any such communication, it cannot be said that the respondent has failed to accept the offer.
It is argued that the communication dated 11.12.2001 is in pursuance of the communication dated 19.10.2001, but is not strictly in accordance with the terms thereof. Therefore, the cancellation vide communication (Annexure P-6) is not sustainable, as such cancellation has to be in terms of the offer made.
Lastly, it is argued that even in equity, respondent No.2 is entitled to allotment, as the plot in dispute is lying vacant since the year 2001 and that respondent No.2 has deposited the substantial amount of over Rs.1 crore. Reliance is placed upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment reported as M.D., HSIDC & others Vs. M/s Hari Om Enterprises & another AIR 2009 SC 218 that re-allotment of plot be made on payment of the current allotment price. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Before we consider the respective arguments of the parties, the question need to be examined is that what is the nature of the CWP No.1610 of 2008 8 communication Annexure P-4 i.e. letter of allotment.
In Aruna Luthra's case (supra), it was held that the allotment letter is an offer made to the perspective purchaser. Such purchaser has to accept the offer in the manner communicated in the letter of allotment and on such acceptance alone, a concluded contract comes to existence nor it is transfer within the meaning of Section 2(x) of the Act. It was held to the following effect:
"11. A reading of the facts stated above shows that HUDA is not clear as to the meaning of section 17(1) coupled with other relevant sections of the Act nor of regulations 5 and its sub-regulations. Section 15 of the Act provides for disposal of land by HUDA. Sub-section (3) of this section provides that the concerned authority can sell, lease or transfer, whether by auction, allotment or otherwise, any land or building belonging to HUDA, on such terms and conditions, as it may by regulations provide. If lease is created under the regulations so framed in case of default of any terms and conditions of the lease, penalty as provided by section 16 of the Act can be imposed. In case any property is transferred by it by sale or allotment and if the transferee makes default in any of the specified conditions, penal action can be taken under Section 17 of the Act. Section 2(x) of the Act defines transferee' and it means a person including a firm or body of individuals whether incorporated or not to whom land or building is sold, leased or transferred in any manner, whatsoever, under this Act. Regulation 5 of the Regulations prescribes the procedure for transfer by allotment. Under sub- regulation (i), the intending purchaser has to file an application in the prescribed form, which is to accompany with 10 per cent of the prices as provided by under sub-regulation (2), and under sub-regulation 5 on allotment being made, the allottee has to communicate his acceptance or refusal in writing within 30 days of the date of allotment by registered post of the Estate Officer and in case of acceptance, the letter, has to be accompanied by an amount as intimated in the allotment letter, i.e., to make up initial payment of 25 per cent. In case of refusal, the applicant is entitled to refund of the amount tendered with the application. In case an applicant fails to either accept or refuse within the stipulated period, the allotment is to be deemed to be cancelled and the deposit made under sub-regulation (2) CWP No.1610 of 2008 9 may be forfeited.
12. A binding contract between the applicant and HUDA comes into being only when the offered allotment is accepted by the applicant and the acceptance along with balance price to make up 25 per cent is sent to HUDA within 30 days of the receipt of the allotment letter failing which the offer of allotment stands automatically canceled. Till allotment is accepted in the aforesaid manner by the person to whom the offer of allotment is made it does not become a transfer within the meaning of section 2(x) of the Act. If he does not become a transferee, section 17 of the Act would not apply, because the question of taking penal action for breach of condition of transfer would arise only if allotment becomes a contract, on acceptance and payment of the balance price within 30 days of the receipt of letter of allotment. In this case the petitioner did not convey either acceptance of the allotment nor sent the amount asked for within 30 days of the receipt of the allotment letter. Hence under rule 5 (5) of the Regulations, offer of allotment stood automatically canceled."
In Chaman Lal Singhal's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the argument that the allotment cannot be cancelled without following the procedure for resumption of plot provided under Section 17 of the Act. While considering the said argument, the Court held to the following effect:
"19. While it is true that an allotment letter was issued to the appellant by the respondent Authority, but the said allotment was subject to the conditions as mentioned in the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, some of which have been extracted hereinabove. In terms thereof the appellant was required to send a communication to the respondent Authority by registered post that he is accepting the aforesaid allotment made in his favour alongwith an amount of Rs.1,14,436/- within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter. That amount was supposedly 15% of the price payable for the plot of land allotted to him. The said amount together with the amount of Rs.65,392/- which was paid by the appellant applicant along with his application form would, therefore, have constituted 25% of the total tentative price of the land. If the appellant refused to accept the offer of allotment he was required to communicate his CWP No.1610 of 2008 10 refusal by a registered letter within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter failing which it was made clear that the aforesaid allotment would stand cancelled and that the earnest money deposited by him would be forfeited by the Authority and the appellant would have no claim for damages thereafter.
20. A bare perusal of the aforesaid relevant clauses of the allotment letter would indicate that the balance amount of the cost price i.e. Rs.5,39,484/- could be paid either in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in six annual installments which were recoverable in terms of the schedule given in Clause 6 of the aforesaid allotment letter. Clause 10 provides that in case the installment which is payable is not paid by the 10th of the month following the month in which it falls due or in the case the additional price is not paid within time, the Estate Officer shall proceed to take action for imposition of penalty and resumption of plot in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. Clause 11 of the said terms and conditions also makes a reference of Section 17 of the Act.
21. In our considered opinion, the appellant failed to comply with the aforesaid clauses of the letter of allotment and, therefore, his allotment stood cancelled and the earnest money deposited by him could be forfeited by the Authority. The order of cancellation came to be passed by the competent authority after 500 days. Be that as it may, the aforesaid allotment of plot of land in favour of the appellant came to be cancelled because of non-payment of the amount as stipulated in clause 5 and, therefore, the earnest money deposited by him could be forfeited by the Authority.
22. Since the case of the appellant comes within the ambit of clauses 4 and 5 of the allotment letter, the provisions of Section 17 of the Act would have no application and would not apply. It is thus established that there was no agreement/contract between the appellant and the respondent-Authority and there being no such agreement/contract and because of non-compliance of requirement of clause 5, the issue with regard to violation of principles of natural justice also would not arise. Therefore, the contentions that provisions of Section 17 of the Act are violated and that there is non compliance of the principles of natural justice have no merit."
Recently, in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority case CWP No.1610 of 2008 11 (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed an appeal, wherein the allotment made to the petitioner stood cancelled for failure to deposit 25% of the amount within 60 days of the receipt of the allotment letter. The Hon'ble Court held that mere draw of lots/allocation letter does not confer any right to allotment. It was held to the following effect:-
"21. Mere draw of lots/allocation letter does not confer any right to allotment. The system of draw of lots is being resorted to with a view to identify the prospective allottee. It is only a mode, a method, a process to identify the allottee i.e. the process of selection. It is not an allotment by itself. Mere identification or selection of the allottee does not clothe the person selected with a legal right to allotment."
We agree with the judgment of this court in Aruna Luthra's case (supra). The failure of respondent No.2 in depositing 15% of the amount as per the terms and conditions in the letter of allotment, does not lead to a concluded contract nor it is transfer of property of HUDA within the scope of Section 15 of the Act. If the concluded contract has not come into existence and rights in the property have not been transferred, then Section 17 proceedings are not required to be initiated for the cancellation of allotment. The question arises is whether the State Government can call for the records in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 30. The relevant clause reads as under:
"30. Control by State Government - xxx xxx (2) The State Government may, at any time either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf, call for the records of any case disposed of, or order passed by the Authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety or correctness of any order passed or direction issued and may pass such order or issue such direction in relation thereto as it thinks fit:CWP No.1610 of 2008 12
The State Government has a power to call for the records either on its own motion or on an application made to it, if (i) any case is disposed of; or (ii) an order passed by the authority. The State Government is to satisfy the legality and propriety or correctness of any order passed or direction issue.
The question is whether the order of forfeiture of the earnest money amounts to a case disposed of in respect of which the State Government will have jurisdiction to interfere with the communication issued. Keeping in view the judgments referred to above, the failure to accept the terms of allotment does not give rise to any concluded contract. If it is not a concluded contract, no case is disposed of. The "case dispose of"
is an action taken by the authority after the contract comes into existence i.e. proceedings under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town & Country Planning Department, Haryana on 22.06.2003 does not fall within the jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 30 of the Act.
The feeble attempt was made to suggest that it is a direction given by the State Government to the petitioner to carry out the directions for the efficient administration of the Act. We find that such argument is not available to respondent No.2, as under the said provisions, the State Government can issue directions to general importance not in respect of a particular person. The order passed by the State Government Annexure P-8 does not fall within the scope of sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. CWP No.1610 of 2008 13
Though the order dated 22.06.2003 has not been challenged soon thereafter, but the fact remains that such an order passed is without jurisdiction of the State Government. The Chief Administrator has passed a legal and justified order that since the plots were allotted by way of draw of lots, respondent No.2 cannot be considered for allotment of alternative plot. Respondent No.2 has failed to accept the terms and conditions within the time prescribed nor has refused the same within 30 days, which alone could avoid the forfeiture of the earnest amount. Therefore, neither the forfeiture of the earnest money cannot be said to be unjustified nor the claim of respondent No.2 for alternative plot is tenable, as it is a plot allotted in draw of lots.
We do not find any merit in the argument that the petitioner has not disclosed the amount, which is due and payable. In the letter of allotment (Annexure P-4), the amount which is payable by respondent No.2 is clearly specified. Respondent No.2 has failed to deposit the said amount within the time granted. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 was not aware of the amount, which may warrant some consideration by this Court.
The argument that the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the action taken by the State Government under Section 30 of the Act in view of the finality granted to such an order under Section 50 of the Act. To support such argument, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gill Bus Service (Regd.), Amritsar Vs. State of Punjab through Secretary, Punjab, CWP No.1610 of 2008 14 Transport Department, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and another AIR 1993 (Punjab) 128.
We do not find any merit in the said argument. The said judgment is of no help to the argument raised. In the said case, the question raised was as to whether a subordinate authority can be permitted to question the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Act. In the present case, a statutory authority has invoked the jurisdiction of this court against an order passed by a quasi judicial authority. The petitioner is duty bound to protect its rights and to the statutory remedies.
The order under Section 50 of the Act gives finality to every order passed or direction issued by the State Government and that it shall not be questioned in any suit or other legal proceedings. Sub-section (2) bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Section 50 of the Act reads as under:
"50. Finality of orders and bar of jurisdiction of civil courts - (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, every order passed or direction issued by the State Government or order passed or notice issued by the Authority or its officer under this Act shall be final and shall not be questioned in any suit or other legal proceedings.
(2) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter the cognizance of which can be taken and disposed of by any authority empowered by this Act or the rules or regulation made thereunder."
The finality given to an order passed by the State Government proceeds on the assumption that the State Government was competent to issue such direction. As discussed above, the State Government was not competent to issue any direction, when there is no concluded contract in a case of a person. Still further, the bar is that such order shall not be CWP No.1610 of 2008 15 questioned in any suit or proceedings. The other legal proceedings are analogous to the suit. Such legal proceedings will not include the writ jurisdiction of this Court, is Constitutional right. The jurisdiction of this Court cannot be ousted by any statutory provision. Section 50 of the Act will not oust the jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the orders passed. Reference may be made to L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, wherein it has been inter-alia observed that:
78. The legitimacy of the power of courts within constitutional democracies to review legislative action has been questioned since the time it was first conceived. The Constitution of India, being alive to such criticism, has, while conferring such power upon the higher judiciary, incorporated important safeguards. An analysis of the manner in which the Framers of our Constitution incorporated provisions relating to the judiciary would indicate that they were very greatly concerned with securing the independence of the judiciary. These attempts were directed at ensuring that the judiciary would be capable of effectively discharging its wide powers of judicial review. While the Constitution confers the power to strike down laws upon the High Courts and the Supreme Court, it also contains elaborate provisions dealing with the tenure, salaries, allowances, retirement age of Judges as well as the mechanism for selecting Judges to the superior courts. The inclusion of such elaborate provisions appears to have been occasioned by the belief that, armed by such provisions, the superior courts would be insulated from any executive or legislative attempts to interfere with the making of their decisions. The Judges of the superior courts have been entrusted with the task of upholding the Constitution and to this end, have been conferred the power to interpret it.
It is they who have to ensure that the balance of power envisaged by the Constitution is maintained and that the legislature and the executive do not, in the discharge of their functions, transgress constitutional limitations. It is equally their duty to oversee that the judicial decisions rendered by those who man the subordinate courts and tribunals do not fall foul of strict standards of legal correctness and judicial independence. The constitutional safeguards which ensure the independence of the Judges of the superior judiciary, are not available to the Judges of the subordinate judiciary or to CWP No.1610 of 2008 16 those who man tribunals created by ordinary legislations. Consequently, Judges of the latter category can never be considered full and effective substitutes for the superior judiciary in discharging the function of constitutional interpretation. We, therefore, hold that the power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure. Ordinarily, therefore, the power of High Courts and the Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations can never be ousted or excluded.
79. We also hold that the power vested in the High Courts to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of all courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions is also part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This is because a situation where the High Courts are divested of all other judicial functions apart from that of constitutional interpretation, is equally to be avoided".
Coming to the last argument that in equity, respondent No.2 should be allotted plot at the current market price. We do not find any merit in the said argument as well. In the aforesaid cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order under challenge was order of resumption i.e. after the concluded contract has come into existence. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 could not point out that in any case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered that even if a concluded contract has not come into existence, the allotment should be made at the current market price. Still further, the deposit of the amount by the respondent in pursuance of the order passed by the State Government is at its own risk as this court has stayed the order passed at the initial stage itself.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 22.06.2003 (Annexure P-8) and 31.05.2007 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Town & CWP No.1610 of 2008 17 Country Planning, Haryana are quashed. The petitioner shall return the amount said to be lying in deposit with it within a period of two months alongwith interest at the rate of 8% from the date of deposit till its payment. But if the amount has not been utilized by the petitioner, the petitioner shall return the instrument receipt without payment of interest.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
30.04.2012 (A.N.JINDAL)
Vimal JUDGE