MAHABIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of impugned order Annexure P-10 and for issuance of direction to the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment which has been released after one year from the date of its deposit.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out in the present petition, are that the petitioners participated in the auction of the shops in Grain Market, Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani, which was held in pursuance of public notice issued by the respondent authorities. Petitioners, being the higher bidder, were allotted shops. They deposited the requisite amount as per terms and condition of the allotment of shops. Subsequently, their allotments were cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing and without following any procedure. The amount deposited by them was returned after a period of one year but no interest was paid thereupon. Petitioners approached the authorities concerned by making representations and served a legal notice dated 13.09.2017 (Annexure P-7) upon the respondents but no action was taken thereupon. Subsequently, the reply of the legal notice was given and claim of the petitioners for interest was rejected stating therein that they were not entitled for interest in view of terms and conditions of the auction as well as the conditions mentioned in the pamphlets. The judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in case The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others vs Sadhu Ram, Appeal (Civil) 2549 of 2008 has also been relied upon.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners deposited the amount after obtaining loan and shops allotted to them were cancelled. He also submits that the petitioners were entitled for compensation on account of cancellation of allotment as well as interest on delayed payment and before taking action of cancellation, no opportunity was granted to them. The petitioners made an oral request as well as written representation/legal notice but the same was not considered and their claim for interest on delayed payment has been rejected without any sufficient reason.