NIRANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed for seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to pay interest to the petitioner for the delayed payment, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in CWP No.19593 of 2011 decided on 10.07.2012.

(2.) In short, the petitioner gave the highest bid of Rs. 62 crores in the auction dated 29.07.2011 which was accepted. The petitioner was to deposit 10% of the auction price at the time of fall of hammer, 15% within 30 days and 75% in five equated half yearly instalments. The letter of intent was issued to the petitioner within 7 days and letter of allotment within 90 days thereafter. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 3.2 crores at the fall of the hammer apart from Rs. 5 lakhs given as participation money in auction and another sum of Rs. 90 lakhs on 30.07.2011. However, he found that the project was not viable due to non-availability of infrastructure and non-feasibility of the project. Thus, he made a request to the official respondents to refund the money deposited by him but his request was not accepted rather a show cause notice was issued to him on 03.08.2011 to pay the balance amount or face the consequence of forfeiture. The amount was forfeited and the said order of forfeiture was challenged by the petitioner by way of CWP No.19593 of 2011 - Nirankar Singh v. State of Punjab and others which was decided on 10.07.2012 by a Single Bench of this Court, while burdening the petitioner with costs of Rs. 10 lakhs which was ordered to be deducted from the amount forfeited by the respondents and the remaining amount was ordered to be refunded preferably within a period of six months. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.07.2012 was challenged by the respondents by way of Intra Court Appeal bearing LPA No.1252 of 201 At the time of issuance of notice, operation of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.07.2012 was stayed. Ultimately, on 30.09.2013, the appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. Thereafter, the petitioner issued notice to the respondents for payment of the amount directed by the learned Single Judge. The said amount was paid in two instalments, i.e. Rs. 3.95 crores on 20.03.2014 and Rs. 5 lakhs on 09.06.2014 even after filing of contempt petition bearing COCP No.1210 of 2014 decided on 25.11.2014. The petitioner has now come up in this writ petition with prayer for payment of interest alleging that the respondents have made the payment after about six months even from the date of dismissal of their appeal insofar as Rs. 3.95 crores is concerned and about nine months regarding payment of Rs. 5 lacs.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 has vehemently argued that the petitioner does not deserve any amount of interest as it has not been ordered by the learned Single Judge. Rather the learned Single Judge had only issued a direction that the said amount of Rs. 4 crores shall be paid to the petitioner preferably within a period of six months. There was no concrete direction that the amount has to be paid within a period of six months and, therefore, the delay cannot be attributed to the respondents who had challenged the order of learned Single Judge in appeal in which stay was granted by this Court. It is also submitted that the entire payment has now been made to the petitioner. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Orient Enterprises and another, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1729 and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Harnek Singh v. State of Punjab, 2008(1) Service Cases Today 375.