SIDHU BRAR INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-association has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 14.11.2006, passed by the Principal Secretary to Government Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development-cum- Revisional Authority, under Section 45 (8) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning Development Act, 1995 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The earnest money paid by the petitioner-association for participation in the draw of lots has been forfeited to the extent of 50% by the respondents, as is evident from the impugned order.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 26.7.2005 an advertisement was published by the Punjab Urban Development Authority, Mohali (for short, 'PUDA') in the English daily 'Hindustan Times', inviting applications for auction of six school sites at the Urban Estate, Mohali. The auction took place on 17.8.2005. On 12.8.2005, the petitioner-association deposited 5% of the reserve price, amounting to Rs. 7,26,000/- as participation fee before the bid in the Estate Office. The petitioner-association was the highest bidder of 1.39 acres plot reserved for Middle/High School in Sector 66 and gave the bid to purchase the plot @ Rs. 12,000/- per Sq. Yard. The petitioner-association was required to deposit 15% of the bid amount after adjusting the participation fee either on the same date i.e. at the time of auction or after one day failing which the participation fee was to be forfeited. The 15% amount required to be deposited amounted to Rs. 1,14,84,594/-. However, the petitioner association failed to deposit the amount and could offer the same only on 22.8.2005, which was not accepted and highest bid given by the petitioner-association in respect of plot measuring 1.39 acres was cancelled. The whole participation fee, amounting to Rs. 7,26,000/- was ordered to be forfeited.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 it has been asserted that according to the advertisement published by the PUDA (P-1) it has been postulated by clause 2 that in the event of failure to deposit the balance amount of 15% within the stipulated period then the participation fee would be forfeited without any notice and the property is to be offered through re-auction after issuing a fresh advertisement. The respondents have pointed out that once the petitioner-association has admitted the fact of offering the amount for the first time on 22.8.2005, which was required to be offered either on 17.8.2005 or on 18.8.2005 then there is no escape from the conclusion that clause 2 of the advertisement would come in operation and the petitioner-association would forfeit the participation fee. It is claimed that sympathetic view has been taken by the Chief Administrator-cum-Appellate Authority-respondent No. 2 in ordering refund of 50% amount of participation fee.