JAGJIT KHANNA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SERVICE of notice of this petition upon respondent No. 1 is dispensed with because no relief has been claimed against the respondent No. 1. Notice issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been duly served but neither any reply has been filed by them nor anyone has appeared on their be. half to argue the case. In view of this we shall decide the writ petition by assuming that the averments made in the writ petition are correct.

(2.) FATHER of the petitioner late Shri C. L. Khanna gave the highest bid for booth site No. 79 in the auction held by the respondents in Sector 11, Panchkula in the year 1988. Letter of allotment was issued in favour of late Shri C. L. Khanna which contained various conditions. It is said that late Shri C. L. Khanna deposited Rs. 32,700/- on 26/5/1988 and another sum of Rs. 49,050/- on 14. 7. 1988. It has further been giver, out that late Shri C. L. Khanna paid various instalments between 10. 3. 1989 to 11. 2. 1993. However, in the meantime, respondent No. 2 issued notice to Shri C. L. Khanna calling upon him to deposit the amount specified in those notices. Notices Under Section 17 (2), 17 (3) and 17 (4) were also issued from time to time. When the site in dispute was transferred in favour of the present petitioner on the basis of Will executed by late Shri C. L. Khanna, notice was also given to the petitioner requiring him to deposit the sum of Rs. 2,31,385/- as outstanding dues. The petitioner was also informed that in case he fails to deposit the amount, action will be taken Under Section 17 (4) for resumption of the site.

(3.) SHRI Aakash Jain vehemently argued that in view of the admission of similar writ petitions by this Court, this petition should also be admitted and an appropriate stay order be passed in favour of the petitioner. We are not at all impressed with this submission. Admission of another writ petition cannot prevent us from deciding the writ petition after notice to the respondents. We, therefore, do not find any ground to withhold decision of the writ petition merely on the ground that some other petitions have been admitted because that would not be in the interest of the petitioner as well as respondents.