Housing Board Haryana Now Housing Wing, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran v. Permanent Lok Adalat Panchkula And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 29.05.2026 HOUSING BOARD HARYANA
...Petitioner
Vs.
PERMANENT LOK ADALAT AND ANR.
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.
The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking quashing of Award dated 08.02.2024 whereby Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Panchkula has allowed respondent's application filed under Section 22C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short '1987 Act'). It is further seeking stay of order dated 08.02.2024 along with Execution proceedings. 2.
The petitioner-Housing Board Haryana (Now Housing Wing, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran) came into existence in 1971. It invited applications qua registration and multi-story allotment of Type A and B Multi-storied flats to be constructed in different Districts of Haryana on hire purchase basis for serving/Ex-defence and Para-Military personnel of Haryana up to the Rank of JCOs and equivalent ranks. The registration period was from 17.02.2014 to 15.05.2014. The cost of flat was fixed at Rs. 18,80,000/- for Type A and detailed terms and conditions were mentioned in the brochure. The respondent No.2 was employed with
-2CRPF as Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) equivalent to JCO. He on 24.06.2014 applied for the Type A flat, Sector 5, Rohtak along with demand draft of Rs. 1,88,000/- i.e. 10% of the cost of the flat. He was declared successful in the draw of lots held on 29.12.2014 at Panchkula. Intimation was sent to him vide letter dated 12.02.2015 and further direction was issued to deposit ₹2,82,000/- within 30 days from the date of letter, failing which registration would be cancelled without notice by forfeiting 10% of the registration amount. He submitted all the requisite documents along with ₹2,82,000/- i.e. 15% of the advertised cost vide demand draft No.865524 dated 24.02.2015. The construction work could not be completed in time due to certain impediments. Petitioner claims that respondent No.2 directly filed application under Section 22C before PLA without raising grievance before it. PLA has passed the impugned Award on merits on failure of conciliation proceedings. 3.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that PLA has wrongly granted interest @9% on the amount refunded to the respondent. The rate of interest ought to be 7.5%.
4.
The impugned order was passed on 08.02.2024 and petition has been filed after more than two years. The principal amount involved is ₹2,82,000/- which has been subjected interest @ 9% and as per petitioner rate of interest should be 7.5%. There is no dispute with respect to principal amount. Considering the amount involved and the fact that petition has been filed after two years from the date of passing of the impugned order, this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its writ jurisdiction.
-35.
Dismissed.
6.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE May 29, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No