Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement by the Chief Town Planner (H.Q.), Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, at Chandigarh, was filed on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3. Separate written statement by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak, was filed on behalf of respondent no.4. Thereafter, the petitioner-society filed its replication to the written statement filed by respondents no.1 to 3.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner-society, vehemently contended that the impugned demand notice for payment of EDC, order dated 26.3.2009 rejecting the representation of the petitioner-society and also the impugned order dated 7.3.2011, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-society were contrary to the facts of the case and also against the relevant provisions of law because of which, these were not sustainable in law. The primary grievance of the petitioner-society is, as submitted by the learned Senior counsel, that since no external development works have been carried out in and around the colony of the petitioner-society, the respondent authorities have no right to raise the impugned demand for EDC and the impugned demand notice dated 16.5.2008 (Annexure P-9) was liable to be set aside for this reason alone.

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.

Learned counsel for HUDA-respondent no.4, while adopting the argument raised by learned counsel for the State, submits that the petitioner-society has since not paid any amount to HUDA as external development charges till date, it has no cause of action. The writ petition was bereft of any merit and the same was liable to be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the record of the case.

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised and keeping in view the peculiar fact situation of the present case, this court is of the considered opinion that present one is not a fit case for exercising the writ jurisdiction, at the hands of this court. The instant petition, being wholly misconceived, bereft of any merit and without any substance, must fail. We say so for more than one reasons, being recorded hereinafter.

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.