High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/25461/2017dismissed

V.S Chaudhary v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2023-04-1011 pages

"#$$%&'&()*+&, - .

/01"231"+4 $#&#&($+ /$+'2' 0#"#$"+4"(""(3#1$+'

$'*(3$(#'

) 56 0 0 0 76 0

888

! " # $%

0 - &

'(( ()(&* +, $+&-./(0&+1

" # &&, &+ $+&&./(0 21 " # $(()( +& && $++&./(031 " # %

# -& &304" ( (0 (

5" # -& &30 4"( && +& &,,3( ( -67 )(" "&+ &67( 5 ! ()(( "8 9 : 4"&& +& $++& 5

(

&, &+ $+&& " : 4" 5

&, &+ $+&& &* +, $+&-

;( (

( "("

< ( ( ( &-.&1.$1.*1.%1 : &,-- .=>1(

" # &(

"! && +& $++& ((

(( 5

( ( " (?( (

+, +3 $+&3

/(0%(" ( &- &+ $++3 < ( (/ (

( ()("?((&% '(@(" (

( (:"84" "" # $

" 5 ( ?( '(

?( '( !"#

. <

( (("

)("?( '($%& ' (&

)

** + ,

9( # $% (( && +& $++& ( ! $67

./(0&1 <(( "( ( &-.&1 &-.%1" (./(0&+1 &2 +6 &,,,*& +- $++++, &+ $+++(0

5 " (

( <( # $%(

+ - )./

.'012+2 32405 (

"( (

( : ( $67 ( )( ( ./(0&1 @($$ " (2 ( ! "&+ (89 !

( &- -

((

)( ( && +& $++&

(

$+&& , 4("

" ( "

(

( 5./(0 %1( &- &+ $++3 +, +3 $+&3 ! )( 6?( (

+& && $++&$+&& 5

02 "

6-(0 " We may, however, hasten to add that we do not intend to lay down a law that the statutory right conferring the right of the respondent should never be resorted to. We have merely laid down the principle giving some illustrations where it may not be used. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that if the intention of the allottee is dishonest or with an ill motive and if the allottee does not make any payment in terms of the allotment or the statute with a dishonest view or any dishonest motive, then Section 8A can be taken recourse to."

5 >" '( (

"( "/ 5

"( (

( ("( "('( " "( (

(&& +& &,,3! && +* &,,3((( ( !" &,,3

( $+&&?( "

5( / (

(" 5

(" ( "

( ,

5 '( 6+2 (&

)

/ (

(" "( &,0 " All the judgments relied upon by the appellants are distinguishable on facts. Even assuming that for some other allottees, order of resumption of plot had been quashed/cancelled, the appellants cannot claim equality of treatment. Article 14 is a positive concept and cannot be enforced by a citizen in a negative manner."

In State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, it was held as under SCC p.458, para 56)

56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. [Vide State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Jagjit Singh ; Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi); Anand Buttons Ltd. V. State of Haryana; K.K.Bhatia v. State of M.P.; Krishan Bhatt vs. State of J & K; State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh; Union of India vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal.]" &+

5 '(5 (&! 6+25$0&

(0 "..... the Estate Officer did not commit any illegality by resuming the Booth Site because the petitioner had persistently failed to pay the instalments of price despite the notices issued to her under Sections 17(1) (2) and (3). A ranked defaulter like the petitioner is not entitled to relief under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. This is also the ratio of the judgment of this Court in '012+ 2 #0% 8 5

) $5 $5%

02 (& $10+0+'#"*% +

02 A In Sukhpal Singh Kang's case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court considered a somewhat similar issue and observed: " ....the petitioners cannot avoid their liability to pay the instalments of premium and ground rent. That apart, after having taken in part in the auction with full knowledge of the terms and conditions notified by the respondents and having accepted the leases of the sites on the basis of terms and conditions incorporated in the letters of allotment without any protest, the petitioners will be deemed to have agreed to pay the amount of premium along with interest and ground rent in terms of Rules 12 and 13 of the 1973 rules. In our considered opinion, the petitioners cannot seek intervention of the court for getting themselves relieved of their obligation to pay the amount due to the respondents in accordance with the terms of contract."

5" '()(""'(

0 B; (" ! C DA &$

(

"(( 5

" : " " (" " (&& +& &,,3 $67 ! && +* &,,3 5(( /"

" "(" 5 "(()( -.&1'&2-$( @" (" "! 589. # %1

"(0

!&,,3

5 '((/ ( $

91 55

))

" We are, therefore, of the opinion that in case of contracts freely entered into with the State, like the present ones, there is no room for invoking the doctrine of fairness and reasonableness against one party to the contract (State), for the purpose of altering or adding to the terms and conditions of the contract, merely because it happens to be the State. In such cases, the mutual rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the terms of the contracts (which may be statutory in some cases) and the laws relating to contracts. It must be remembered that these contracts are entered into pursuant to public auction, floating of tenders or by negotiation. There is no compulsion on anyone to enter into these contracts. It is voluntary on both sides.

There can be no question of the State power being involved in such contracts. It bears repetition to say that the State does not guarantee profit to the licensees in such contracts. There is no warranty against incurring losses. It is a business for the licensees. Whether they make profit or incur loss is no concern of the State. In law, it is entitled to its money under the contract."

; ((#

620& 91 955

$8* ),7

'( '( "

On the preliminary objection it was finally urged by the appellants that the objection was misconceived because there was, in fact, no contract between the parties and therefore they were not attempting to enforce any contractual rights or to wriggle out of contractual obligations. The short answer to this contention is that the bids given by the appellants constitute offers and upon their acceptance by the Government a binding agreement came into existence between the parties. The

conditions of auction become the terms of the contract and it is on those terms that licences are granted to the successful bidders in Form L. 14A of the Rules". &6.

E " "

'(@ ( "" 5( (

( "

5 '(@

+ *% ),7 .

/ "(!"

5 '(0 B The licenses in the present case are contracts between the parties. The licensees voluntarily accepted the contracts. They fully exploited to their advantage the contracts to the exclusion of others. The High Court rightly said that it was not open to the appellants to resile from the contracts on the ground that the terms of payment were onerous. The reason given by the High Court were that the licensees accepted the licence by excluding their competitors and it would not be open to the licensees to challenge the terms either on the ground of inconvenient consequences of terms or of harshness of terms." &-

@ "(

("("

@ /

(( # $%

( ( (

/?( @(

( )("'(?(

@"(

0 0!

0 !

*+&, - .

( ; C

!FC# ; " FC#