HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ROOCHIRA CERAMICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) Leave granted.

(3.) The respondent was allotted an industrial plot. He had to pay 25% of the price in the beginning and the balance in 6 equal instalments. He only paid the first instalment but not the rest. A show-cause notice was given to him on 5/9/1994 under Section 17 (3 of the HUDA Act. A notice proposing imposition of penalty was also issued. These notices could not be served upon him and therefore notices were served by affixture. A notice dated 10/1/1995 was also given providing personal hearing. The respondent never appeared. Accordingly the plot was resumed under Section 17 (4 of the Act and the amount deposited was forfeited. The appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the Appellate Authority who held that though several notices were issued to the respondent, he has been evading service. It dismissed the appeal holding that in view of the persistent defaults made by the respondent, there was no ground for interference in appeal. The respondent therefore approached the Punjab and Haryana High court by way of a writ petition. He pleaded certain financial difficulties. Without recording a finding as to the correctness of the said plea assuming for the sake of argument that such a course was permissible in a writ petition the High court allowed the writ petition "keeping in view the financial stringency of the petitioner, interest of the parties, readiness and willingness of the petitioner to pay the remaining unpaid amount and to set the controversy at rest". The High court further directed that interest shall be charged only at 10% per annum on the amount due and not at the rate of 18% as calculated by the Authority for a part of the period.