DHIRENDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) THE controversy as raised in the present writ petition is narrated in brief herein as under:

(3.) IT has further been contended that when neither completion/occupancy certificate was issued nor there was any responsibility on the respondents, the petitioner has submitted a RTI application dated 22.6.2011. In response to which the authority in their reply dated 8.7.2011 has informed that the delay penalty is to the tune of Rs.6,66,600/ -. Copy of the said application has been brought on record as annexure 6 to the writ petition. In response to the aforesaid, certain more informations were sought, however, the authority vide letter dated 20.7.2011 has intimated that "the Chief Executive Officer has approved the exemption on delay charges from 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2008. Thereafter, ensure to deposit Rs.4,78,800/ - as delay penalty upto 30.6.2011. Thereafter, 1% of prevalent rate will be payable as Delay Penalty per month." However, being aggrieved against the aforesaid calculation, petitioner has submitted a representation pointing out the errors of calculation and also raised points which were not considered while arriving at Rs.4,78,800/ - made payable as Delay Penalty as upto 30.6.2011. However, thereafter a number of correspondence was entered into between the petitioner and respondent authorities, which ultimately culminated in the petitioner's filing a writ petition before this Court being writ petition no. 194 of 2012 seeking a number of reliefs. However, the said writ petition was disposed of finally by a Division Bench of this Court on 25.9.2012 by an order which reads as follows: -