Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is further submitted that the petitioner-society has already paid substantial amount towards EDC, but no proportionate development has been carried out by the respondents. Learned Senior counsel next contended that the amount of ` 377.80 crores, which was stated to have been spent by HUDA, on the development works of the entire Rohtak town, was of no use and relevance, because no external development work has been done for the colony of the petitioner-society. It has also been argued that even if the payment of interest @ 18% + penal interest @ 3% p.a. has been mentioned in the contract, the petitioner- society cannot be forced to pay the same and it was liable to be struck down, being arbitrary on the face of it.

v) In case the HUDA executing external development works completes the same before the due date and consequently required the charges for the same, the DTCP shall be empowered to call upon the Society to pay the EDC even before the completion of four years period and the Coloniser shall be bound to do so.

(vi) The Society/Owner will arrange the electric connection from outside source for electrification of their colony from H.V.P.N. If they failed to provide electric connection from H.V.P.N. the Director Town and Country Planning will recover the cost from the owner and deposit it with H.V.P.N. (c ) that the rates, schedules and terms and conditions of External Development Charges may be revised by the Director during the period of licence as and when necessary and the Owner shall be bound to pay the balance enhanced charges, if any, in accordance with the rate, schedule and terms and conditions so determined by the Director alongwith interest from the date of grant of licence.

Next submission of the learned Senior counsel that the liability of the petitioner-society to pay the EDC was only qua the plotted area seems to be attractive at first blush, but when considered in the light of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the same has been found baseless. Similarly, the contention that the amount spent by HUDA to the extent of ` 377.80 crores on the development works was not relatable to the petitioner-society, is again misconceived. As noted above, all the external development works, in the very nature of things, cannot be restricted only for the petitioner-society. Further, the petitioner-society would be enjoying the external development works not only for its plotted area but the gross area, because of which the argument raised by the learned Senior counsel carries no weight and has to be rejected.

The petitioner-society has not shown its bonafide to pay any substantial amount out of the amount demanded by the respondents, vide impugned demand notice dated 16.5.2008 (Annexure P-9). Neither law nor equity is in favour of the the petitioner. It has also been specifically stated by respondents no.1 to 3 in paras 17 and 18 of their written statement that HUDA was not gaining anything in delaying the execution of external development works. However, if all the beneficiaries of the external development works including the petitioner would not be paying the EDC, it would become very difficult for the executing agency, i.e. HUDA to complete the external development works at an early date. In view of the fact noted above, this court is of the view that non payment of EDC for years together by the beneficiaries of external development works like the petitioner society, would become a vicious circle. HUDA also cannot be forced to carry out the external development works from other sources, as huge public money is required to carry out the external development works.