AMARJEET SINGH RANDHAWA Vs. NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT i. e. the Notified Area Committee (Now Municipal Corporation) Chandigarh conducted an open auction of commercial sites on 20. 6. 1990 in the 61, 21 Area Development Scheme, Mani Majra as per the terms of allotment appended as Annexure P-1 to the petition. The petitioner participated in the said auction and their bid for S. C. O. No. 703 for Rs. 41,01,000/being the highest was accepted. This information was conveyed to the petitioners vide Memo dated 17. 7. 1990 Annexure P-2 to the petition. The petitioners accordingly deposited a sum of Rs. 4,10,100.00 on 30. 6. 1990 representing 10% of the auction bid for the site in question. The petitioners thereafter deposited another sum of Rs. 6,15,000.00 on 30. 7. 1990 vide receipt Annexure P. 3 to the position. Petitioner No. 2 thereafter representing the other petitioners as well, wrote to the Secretary Notified Area Committee, Manimajra on 4. 12. 1990 Annexure, P. 4 to the petition informing him that the amount to be deposited upto that date had been deposited and that necessary formalities and amenities be provided at the site so that the construction could be commenced at the earliest. A reminder to the same effect was also sent on 2. 4. 1991. It appeals that the petitioners could not make the construction on the site and chose to surrender the same and accordingly wrote to the respondents vide letter dated 19. 9. 1991. Annexure P-5 to the petition, exercising their option to surrender the plot and requesting that a sum of Rs. 10,25,250/that had been deposited by them be refunded after making deduction of 10% therefrom as forfeiture money on surrender, by virtue of Clause 18 of Annexure P-1.

(2.) IT appears that the respondent did not lake any action in the matter for sometime and vide letter dated 19. 6. 1992 Annexure P-6 to the petition informed the petitioner that before the refund could be made certain formalities were required to be carried out. The petitioners duly completed the formalities as detailed in Annexure P-6 in the month of August/september, 1992 and waited for the refund thereafter. The respondents, however, issued a cheque on 23. 7. 1993 i. e. after a lapse of 22 months from the date of surrender, for a sum of Rs. 5,92,113.00 only which represented the amount much lower than would be payable after deduction of 10 per cent made as per Clause 18. As the total amount to be refunded according to the petitioner would have been Rs. 9,22,725.00, the petitioners accepted this amount under protest and issued a legal notice to the respondent on 10. 8. 1993 and sought refund of a further amount of Rs. 3,30,612.00 alongwith interest thereon with effect from 23. 7. 1993 till the date of actual payment. Certain other amounts representing the interest claimable were also sought. The petitioners also moved a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the State Commission at Chandigarh but before notice could be issued the said complaint was got dismissed as withdrawn. As the respondent had not taken any action of the legal notice, the petitioners have filed this writ petition praying inter-alia that the respondents were entitled to deduct only 10% of the 25 per cent that has been deposited on 30. 6. 1990 and not 10% of the total bid money of about Rs. 41 lacs

(3.) THE petitioner have also filed a replication to the written statement wherein it is pointed out that the post script in Clause 24 on which primary reliance; has been placed by the respondent though relating to Clause 18 had been added as a result of the resolution of the Notified Area Committee dated 23. 8. 1991 and this clarification amendment was therefore could not operate retrospectively to the prejudice to the petitioners.