RAMJI DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, purchased a shop in Sector 20 -C at Chandigarh in a public auction for Rs. 15,000. He deposited 25 per cent of that amount on the same day and the balance was to be paid in three equal instalments with interest at 4 £ per cent per annum. The first instalment became due on January 10, 1961, but the Petitioner defaulted and the site of the shop was resumed on November 13, 1961, by the Estate Officer. On appeal, the Chief Administrator reversed that order and directed payment of instalment with interest, which payment was made by the Petitioner. The second instalment became due on January 10, 1962 and again the Petitioner defaulted. The Estate Officer then proceeded to resume the site under Section 9 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (Punjab Act 17 of 1952) and also forfeited the amount already paid by the Petitioner. This order was made on May, 9, 1962. The appeal of the Petitioner under Section 10 of the Act was heard by the Chief Administrator on August 17, 1962. A copy of the order of the Chief Administrator is Annexure 'A' to the petition. The appeal of the Petitioner was accepted 'subject to the conditions that (i) the arrears of instalment, with interest at the rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum and a penalty to the extent of 10 per cent of the amount in arrears, are paid in cash within a period of thirty days from the date of the issue of this order and (ii) a deed of conveyance in respect of the site is duly executed within the said period of thirty days'. A copy of this order was endorsed on August 20, 1962, to the Petitioner and was received by him on the next day. The Petitioner then filed a revision petition under Sub -section (4) of Section 10 of the Act to the State Government, about which he was informed on January 4, 1963 that the same had been rejected. It is after that that the Petitioner filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the validity and legality of the order of the Chief Administrator made on appeal .

(2.) IT has been one of the allegations of the Petitioner that on August 17, 1962, he was orally informed by the Chief Administrator that his appeal was accepted setting aside the order of resumption made by the Estate Officer and that he was to make a deposit of the arrears of the instalment due, which, the Petitioner says, was deposited on August 19, but when on August 21, 1962, he received copy of the order of the Chief Administrator, he was surprised to discover that it contained two conditions on which the appeal had been accepted. His position has been that the Chief Administrator never informed him that the order in appeal was subject to those conditions. He then avers that the order was in fact written on August 20, when the Chief Administrator as an after -thought added those conditions in the order. It was then conveyed to him on August, 21, 1962. The Chief Administrator has made return in reply to this allegation and has clearly and unmistakably denied that those are the facts. He states that the whole of the order, with the conditions, was announced to the Petitioner and written and signed on August 17, 1962, but its copy was typed in his office on August 20, 1962 and despatched to the Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner says that the order itself bears no date, which is true, but there is no reason to doubt in the least the return of the Chief Administrator in reply to the allegations of the Petitioner in this behalf. It would perhaps have been better if the order had been dated and it is hoped that this omission will not occur again, to enable a party, as the Petitioner in this case, to make such an allegation. So, in the wake of the categorical statement by the Chief Administrator in this respect, this allegation by the Petitioner cannot be accepted as correct.

(3.) IT is immediately evident that the Chief Administrator ordered payment of interest and imposition of penalty at ten per cent per annum on the arrears in the exact terms of this rule. The policy of the Government has already been translated into this rule and merely because the Chief Administrator has not made any reference in his reply to this rule, but has referred to the subject -matter of the rule as the policy of the Government, that does not make his order in this respect not a judicial order. This approach is devoid of substance.