Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing ... vs Raj Pal And Another on 30 November, 2011
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
LPA No. 2167 and 2168 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
LPA No. 2167 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision 30 .11.2011
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and another
. Appellants
Versus
Raj Pal and another .. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Partap Singh , Advocate for the appellants
1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M.KUMAR,J.
1. This order shall dispose of LPA Nos. 2167 and 2168 of 2011 as both the writ petitions relatable to the aforesaid appeals have been disposed of by a common judgement. The writ petitioner- respondents approached this Court with the grievance that the appellants were not issuing them no objection certificate in respect of their respective booths allotted in New Extension Grain Market, Ladwa. Booths were allotted to them on 27.5.1999. They also sought direction restraining the appellants from claiming interest on the instalments on the basis of directions issued on 9.9.2003 (P.4) in CWP No. 9120 of 2002.
2. The facts which have been noticed by the learned Single Judge in brief are that the appellants allotted a plot to each of the writ petitioners in an auction held on 30.7.1998 for a sum of Rs. 3,45,000/- and a sum of Rs.86,250/- was deposited as earnest money. The balance amount was required to be paid in six instalments, as per the schedule given in the allotment letter. The appellants could not develop the market as per the LPA No. 2167 and 2168 of 2011 2 promise made in the advertisement issued for auction of plots (P.2). The writ petitioner- respondents alleged that basic amenities like sewerage, platform, potable water, street light etc. have not been provided which resulted in issuance of legal notice. It was claimed that the appellants were not entitled to ask for instalments and interest thereon till the basic amenities are provided. Some of the allottees filed a joint Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 9120 of 2002 which was disposed of on 9.9.2003. The Division Bench of this Court issued directions to the appellants to the effect that (i) those who have not paid full price of the shops/ booth allotted to them were to pay the balance amount in six equated monthly installments. The first installment of the balance price was to be paid by 30.9.2003 and the remaining instalments were to be paid on or before the last day of the succeeding month; (ii) the appellants were to ensure that amenities like sewerage and water pipelines are made available within a period of six months from the date of the order and (iii) the appellants were not to charge interest on the balance price payable by the writ petitioners in that writ petition.
3. The learned Single Judge noticed that the whole balance amount of Rs. 2,58,750/- was deposited by the writ petitioner- respondents in one go on 12.11.2003 whereas the writ petitioner- respondent in CWP No. 779 of 2010 cleared all the payment by October, 2003. However, till no objection certificate has not been granted on the ground that they were to pay interest. The basic reason was that they were not covered by the directions issued by this Court on 9.9.2003 in CWP No. 9120 of 2002.
4. The stand taken before the learned Single Judge by the appellants was that the writ petitioner- respondents were not party in CWP LPA No. 2167 and 2168 of 2011 3 No. 9120 of 2002 decided on 9.9.2003 and therefore the directions issued in that petition were not binding. They are governed by the terms and conditions of allotment letter and any breach of those conditions would entitle the appellants to recover interest as well as penal interest.
5. The learned Single Judge noticed that the writ petitioner- respondents have cleared the entire payment in November, 2003 or in October, 2003 and the period of six months was to expire on 9.3.2004. The instalments were paid within the period stipulated in the directions issued by this Court on 9.9.2003. It has been conceded by the appellants that they have not provided complete amenities which resulted into issuance of directions by this Court on 9.9.2003. The learned Single Judge found that it would not be fair to ask the writ petitioner- respondents to pay interest especially when they had made the whole payment without the amenities having been provided by the appellants. Merely because the writ petitioner- respondents have not filed any petition would not be good enough to conclude that they are liable to pay interest. The payment of interest is directly linked with the liability of the appellants to provide amenities as per the terms of the allotment letter.
6. We have heard Mr. Partap Singh, learned counsel for the appellants at a considerable length who has repeated the same submissions. According to the loearned counsel once a person is not a party to the earlier proceedings then such a person would not be entitled to claim the benefit of that order because such order would be deemed to be confined to the parties to the litigation. However, we express our inability to accept the submission. It is well settled that every one sailing in the same boat is not required to approach this Court. If the lack of amenities was the basis LPA No. 2167 and 2168 of 2011 4 for not charging interest from those who approached this Court, there cannot be any justification to ask the writ petitioner- respondents to pay interest because of lack of facilities is a common factor. The result of such an approach would be that persons who have filed petitions who may be two booths away, would be treated differently than the one who did not file the petition. For that view we place reliance on the observations made in para 19 of the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of K.I.Shephard v. U.O.I. AIR 1988 SC 686 wherein it has been observed that there was no justification to penalize the litigant for not having initiated any proceedings and the employees of the bank in that case were held entitled to the benefits which were given to the litigants in the earlier petition. Therefore, no case is made out for admission of the appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.
7. In view of the dismissal of the appeals on merit, there is no necessity of passing any orders on the application seeking condonation of delay.
8. A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected appeal.
(M.M.Kumar) Judge (Rajiv Narain Raina) 30.11.2011 Judge okg