Ved Ahuja And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

-12024:PHHC:020001-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28061-2023 Date of decision: 13.02.2024 Ved Ahuja and others ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present:

Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate, and Mr. Risham Raag Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate.

**** ARUN PALLI, J. (Oral) On December 20, 2023, this Court had passed the following order:- In response to our order dated 14.12.2023, learned State counsel submits that pursuant to the recovery certificate dated 08.05.2023, issued by the competent authority, the requisite amount (Rs.32,42,542/-) had since been recovered on 18.08.2023. And accordingly, the amount was remitted to the RERA authority to be disbursed to the complainant/decree holder on 14.09.2023. However, he submits that owing to administrative apathy the said draft continues to lie with the authority. As a result the amount has still not been disbursed. He has filed a short reply on behalf of Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram, in Court today, which is taken on record. Copy furnished.

However, he prays for a short accommodation to obtain instructions and explain as to why despite receipt of the draft the amount was still not be disbursed to the complainant-decree holder. Adjourned to 13.02.2024.

AMIT KUMAR 2024.02.15 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

-22024:PHHC:020001-DB Learned counsel for the parties submit that post passing of the two successive orders by this Court, petitioners have since been released an amount of Rs.32,42,542/-, by way of a pay order/demand draft, on 05.01.2024. Although there is hardly any justification, least plausible, as to why the amount that had been recovered, pursuant to the recovery certificate, on 18.08.2023, and was also remitted to the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (respondent No.4) on 14.09.2023, was not disbursed to the petitioners immediately thereafter. Even the explanation that is sought to be tendered in paragraph 4 of the affidavit submitted by respondent No.4, in this regard, is unsatisfactory. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the wake of the position sketched out above, nothing substantive survives in the petition and the same be disposed of, as having been rendered infructuous.

Ordered accordingly.

(ARUN PALLI) JUDGE (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 13.02.2024 Ak Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No AMIT KUMAR 2024.02.15 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document