Narinder Kumar Sood v. State Of Hy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-7616-2001 Date of decision:- 18.01.2016 Narinder Kumar Sood

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI Present: Ms. Nimrata Shergill, Advocate, for the petitioner.

* * * * S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 18.12.2000 and a memo dated 19.07.1999 demanding a sum of Rs. 8161/-.

2.

By a letter of allotment dated 10.07.1989, the petitioner was allotted a booth on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner paid 25% of the amount within the stipulated period. There were defaults thereafter as a result whereof the respondents resumed the booth by an order dated 24.09.1997. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order under Section 17(5) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 which was disposed of by an order dated 16.03.1999. The order records that the petitioner could not deposit the amounts due to reasons beyond his control. The order further records that during the hearing, the appellant stated that he was ready to deposit all the dues if the site in question was restored to him.

In view thereof, the Appellate Authority taking a lenient view directed that the plot be restored in favour of the appellant subject to his clearing all the dues within 90 days. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner did not seek a refund of any amount(s) alleging that he had paid the same in excess. He was content to invite an order restoring the booth subject to his paying the dues. Pursuant thereto, the demand of Rs. 8161/- was made by the impugned demand notice dated 19.07.1999. AMODH SHARMA 2016.01.

CWP-7616-2001 3.

Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a review application. The Revisional Authority dismissed the revision application on the ground that the petitioner had consented to pay the amounts before the Appellate Authority in the first appeal. That consent was, however, to pay the amounts as per law and not in respect of the amounts demanded otherwise than in accordance with law.

4.

In these circumstances, we find no term in the allotment letter that entitles the respondents to charge compound interest. The finding that the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Kanta Devi Budhiraja Vs State of Haryana through the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana and others, Vol. CXXV-(2000-2), Punjab Law Reporter, 698 is prospective and not retrospective is incorrect. The judgement declares the law. The judgement of this Court cannot be only prospective.

5.

In these circumstances, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The Revisional Authority shall compute the amounts that were due by the petitioner in accordance with law including the allotment letter. It is clarified that the Revisional Authority shall also calculate the interest as per the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment and in accordance with law. If any excess amount is found to have been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be refunded.

6.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (S.J. VAZIFDAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 18.01.2016 Amodh AMODH SHARMA 2016.01.19 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh