SUKHPAL SINGH KANG Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be exercised for relieving the petitioners of their obligation to pay the amount of premium along with interest and ground rent in accordance with the provisions of Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) and the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Rules) and the terms and conditions of allotment is the main issue which arises for adjudication in these petitions filed primarily for the purpose of restraining the respondents from realising the amount due from the petitioners although the drafting of petitions has been so articulated as to give an impression that the failure of the respondents to discharge their duty to provide amenities has deprived the petitioners of full use and enjoyment of the THE RELEVANT FACTSC.W.P. No. 3370 of 1992On the basis of the highest bid of Rs. 44,00,000/- given by them in the auction held by the Chandigarh Administration on 25-2-1990 in pursuance of advertisement Annexure P. 1 dated 23-2-1990, commercial site (SCO No. 66-67), Sector 8-C was leased out to petitioners-Sukhpal Singh and 19 others for a period of 99 years. Clauses 1, 4, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 22 of the general terms and conditions which were made known to all the bidders at the time of auction and which are common to all the cases read as under:

(2.) The petitioners took possession of the site after Rs. 11,00,000/- and erected the building in accordance with the sanction granted to their building plan by the competent authority on 18-7-1990. The water connection was released in their favour on 26-7-1990. Temporary electricity connection was provided to them on 6-3-1992 and the permanent connection was released on 15-11-1993. In the intervening period, the petitioners paid first instalment before the date i.e. 10-3-1991. But they did not pay the second instalment, the payment of which became due on 10-3-1992. Instead, they invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for restraining the respondents from realising the amount of instalments of premium, ground rent etc. by contending that without providing basic amenities like sewerage, street lights, electric connection, water supply, the respondents cannot compel them to pay the amount of instalment etc. and obtained stay on the recovery of instalments of premium etc.During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner No. 1 filed an additional affidavit dated 5-5-1996 along with 4 photographs to show that the public parking place and proper slow carriage way on the rear side of the market place had not been provided even upto that date and, therefore, they have not been able to put their premises to its maximum use and have not been able to get adequate rent.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the respondents in the form of affidavit of Shri S.K. Sharma. Assistant Estate Officer, it has been averred that the basic amenities like street lights, parking lot and approach road have already been provided at the site. In paragraph 4 of his affidavit, the Assistant Estate Officer has made the following statement regarding the status of site leased out to the petitioner: