RAJINDER KAUR Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON November, 18, 1997, the respondent Administration auctioned a site in the Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh for the setting up of Weigh Bridge. The petitioner was the highest bidder. His offer of Rs. 58 lacs was accepted. The petitioner had paid 25% of the amount at the time of auction. In pursuance to the acceptance of the bid, the petitioner was given a letter of allotment on January 19, 1998. The remaining 75% had to be paid in three annual instalments payable on December 10, 1998, December 10, 1999 and December 10, 2000. In October 1998, the petitioner sent two communications to the Estate Officer with the request that amenities be provided at the site so that she may be able to set up the Weigh Bridge and utilise the money spent by her. Nothing was done. Two further representations were submitted in November, 1998. The copies of the four representations are on record as Annexures P-7 to P-10. When the authorities failed to do the needful, the petitionr filed the present writ petition in December 1998. She prays that "a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the amenities such as water connection, sewerage connection, electricity supply, approach road and parking at the site be issued". She further prays that the "instalment, ground rent and interest, which is payable by 10th December 1998 may be deferred and the respondents may be directed to charge the instalment, ground rent and interest after one year from the provision of the amenities".

(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued. The respondents put in appearance on April 19, 1999. They were directed to file the written statement two days prior to the date of hearing. No reply was filed. A request for more time was made. On September 13, 1999 further time was granted. The case was adjourned at January 17, 2000. The reply on behalf of the respondents was filed on January 17, 2000. Neither the name nor the designation of the officer who filed the written statement has been disclosed by Ms. Deepali Puri. No reply was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The case was adjourned and finally it was listed for hearing before this Bench on October 10, 2000. On that date a request for adjournment to enable the Administration to file an affidavit was made. Simultaneously time was also granted to Ms. Deepali Puri, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation to obtain instructions regarding the provision of the facilities at the site. It has come up for hearing today.

(3.) THE sequence of events, as noticed above, clearly shows that the petitioner has been unable to use the site for lack of basic amenities since November 1997. Even a road has not been provided. Thus, it is not even possible to reach the site. The setting up or utilisation of the Weigh Bridge is obviously difficult. It is on account of the inaction on the part of the respondents that the petitioner has been unable to derive any advantage from the land and to earn a return on the substantial amount of money already spent by her.