VIJAY KUMAR Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants bidders purchased Booth No.12 in Sector 10, Panchkula measuring 22.63 sq. mtrs. for a sum of Rs.8,35,000/- in an auction. The complainants bidders deposited th amount of the bid and the remaining price is payable by means of instalments detailed in letter of allotment dated 17.12.1999, Annexure C-l. The complainants had the grievance that there were illegal toilets which were existing in front of the site and there were some walls blocking this site. They approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court through C. W. P. No.1668 of 2000 and wanted that the respondents be restrained from charging interest on pending payments from the petitioners and a writ or order directing the respondents to remove the illegal encumbrances, encroachments and hindrances and to develop the area properly. After hearing the writ which too was represented by Mr. C. S. Pasricha, Advocate, it was disposed of. The detailed operative part of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 8.2.2000, Annexure C-6 is reproduced as under : "after hearing Mr. C. S. Pasricha and perusing the record, we are satisfied that a direction need be given to the Estate Officer as well as the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula to take action on the complaint made by the petitioners about the existence of illegal structure in front of their booth. Hence, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction that within ten days of the submission of a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition before the Administrator/estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, the Authorities concerned shall consider the grievance of the petitioners and take appropriate action for removal of the unauthorised construction, if any, raised on the HUDA land. It is, however, made clear that before passing a final order, the person who is in occupation of the illegal construction shall be given notice and opportunity of hearing. Sd/- G. S. Singhvi sd/- N. K. Sud, february 8, 2000 Judges"

(2.) It is clear that the present complainants approached the High Court for redressal of their grievance and a specific order has been passed. There appears to be no cause for the complainants after the aforesaid order to approach this Commission. Besides, the site of the booth is situated at Panchkula and not at Chandigarh. The Estate Officer who issued the letter of allotment, Annexure C-l is also holding its office at Panchkula as mentioned specifically on page 2 thereof. After perusal of the complaint in its present form and after the decision in the writ petition dated 8.2.20c0 regarding this plot the complainants had no cause of approaching this Commission. The conclusion is that the complaint is hereby dismissed in limine after hearing.