Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S V Care Health Services Ltd vs Chandigarh Administration And Ors on 4 November, 2014
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
CWP No.20695 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.20695 of 2014
Date of decision:4.11.2014
M/s V. Care Health Services (Pvt) Ltd. ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Chandigarh Administration and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present: Mr. Vikas Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
*******
HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order of cancellation of lease dated 03.08.2011 passed by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, affirmed by the Chief Administrator on 03.06.2013 and later by the Adviser to the Administrator on 31.07.2014 in respect of site SCO No.12-13, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
The petitioner participated in the auction for purchase of two Nursing Home sites bearing Nos.10-11 and 12-13 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 08.12.1996. The petitioner was found the highest bidder in respect of SCO No.12-13, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh having given bid of Rs.1,62,00,000/- on 18.12.1996. In view of the highest bid, a letter of allotment was issued on 14.03.1997. The petitioner deposited 15% of the amount to make the total amount deposited as 25% of the bid amount. However, the petitioner did not raise construction on the site nor deposited balance 75% of the premium amount but sought conversion of the site GULATI DIWAKER 2014.11.13 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.20695 of 2014 2 for a general trade. Since the Administration did not take any final decision on the request of the petitioner for change of trade, the petitioner filed CWP No.5379 of 2000 before this Court. This Court granted two months' time to the respondents to take a final decision. In pursuance of such direction, the Adviser to the Administrator passed an order on 07.07.2000 permitting change of trade on payment of conversion charges and also permitted the petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount with 1% penalty on the amount due.
The petitioner challenged the said order in CWP No.12484 of 2000 but the same was withdrawn on 14.06.2003 with liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition bearing CWP No.12204 of 2003. The said writ petition was withdrawn on 15.10.2012.
The petitioner was served with notices for cancellation of lease for the reason that the petitioner has failed to deposit the balance 75% of the premium amount along with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum as well as yearly ground rent. The learned Estate Officer on 03.08.2011 found that a sum of Rs.6,13,46,363/- is due and payable as on 31.07.2011. The said amount has not been paid even though the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities. It is also noticed that adjoining identical site was auctioned on the same day but the purchaser of the adjoining site has deposited all the outstanding dues, got executed lease deed and also obtained No Due Certificate, though their request for conversion of use of site for Nursing Home to general trade is pending consideration.
GULATI DIWAKER 2014.11.13 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.20695 of 2014 3
Noticing the fact that the challenge to conversion charges is pending before this Court but there is no stay by this Court, therefore, the Estate Officer found that non-deposit of the outstanding amount warrants cancellation of lease. Such order was affirmed in appeal by the Chief Administrator on 03.06.2013. In further revision, the learned Adviser recorded the following findings:-
"In my considered opinion, it is not feasible to restore the site at the original auction price due to long delays. The price of the property rises day by day and there is a loss to the state exchequer when amounts due to be paid in sites auctioned out are not deposited by allottees in the prescribed time frame as per terms and conditions of allotment. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No.12968 & 13141 of 2006 is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover, the counsel for the petitioner failed to prove on record any perversity in the order of the Chief Administrator as well as Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh. Therefore, I see no justification to give any relief to the petitioner and while upholding the order of the Chief Administrator, dismiss the present petition being devoid of merits."
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the entire outstanding amount and that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in not depositing the amount payable to the Administration. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors, 2004 (2) SCC 130; judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Dheera Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh Admn., ILR (2013) 1 P&H 217, and Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No.12159 of 1995 titled Jagjit Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, decided on 01.10.2014. GULATI DIWAKER 2014.11.13 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.20695 of 2014 4
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find no merit in the present writ petition. The petitioner had purchased the commercial site in an open auction conducted in the year 1996. The possession of the site was delivered to the petitioner in the year 1997 but for the last 17 years, the petitioner has failed to raise construction and has also failed to deposit the balance 75% of the premium amount; ground rent and also the penalties. The petitioner was allowed conversion of user of building but even the conversion charges were not paid. The conduct of the petitioner is contumacious in not depositing the amount consistently for the last 17 years and not raising construction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that entire principal amount was tendered when the revision was pending before the Adviser to the Administrator amounting to Rs.1,50,00,000/-, therefore, the petitioner has shown his bona fide in depositing the amount though the said amount has been returned to the petitioner.
The property purchased by the petitioner is located in the prime location in Chandigarh in Sector 8, Madhya Marg. The non-use of said site for a period of 17 years deprives the citizen of the town the benefit of the commercial activities in the area. The site was sold for nursing home, a basic amenity but though the change of trade was permitted, but the petitioner has neither used the building itself nor permitted any person desirous to carry out commercial activity. Such conduct does not entitle the petitioner to any indulgence at this stage. The judgments referred to are in the facts of their own cases. No GULATI DIWAKER 2014.11.13 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.20695 of 2014 5 person can be permitted to hold on the site for 17 years without any activity and even without payment of premium amount.
Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 4, 2014 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
'D. Gulati' JUDGE
GULATI DIWAKER
2014.11.13 11:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document