IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P.No. 3083 of 2008
Date of Decision: 15.7.2008
M/S Enchante Jewellery & Gems Limited.
....... Petitioner through Shri Kirti
Uppal, Advocate.
Versus
Estate Officer-II, Haryana Urban Development Authority
(HUDA), Gurgaon and another.
....... Respondents through Shri
Ashok Aggarwal, Senior
Advocate assisted by Shri
Amit Aggarwal, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN,
CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
….
VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE
The petitioner- M/S Enchante Jewellery & Gems Limited,
earlier known as M/S Mehrasons Jewellery and Gems Limited, while
invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, has made multifarious prayers, but the challenge is
essentially hovering around order dated 18.9.2007 (Annexure P9) vide
which resumption order dated 24.6.1998 has been upheld. The petitioner
seeks the quashing of these two orders.
The petitioner was allotted an institutional plot by respondent
C.W.P.No.3083 of 2008
-2-
….
no.1 in the year 1995 after its representative was interviewed on 18.4.1995
and its eligibility, according to the norms, was found to be acceptable. Plot
No. 24 situated in Sector 32, Gurgaon having a tentative area of 2035 square
meters was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 28.6.1995 at
a tentative price of Rs.46,80,500/-.
Shorn off other details, one of the primary requirements of the
allotment letter was the schedule of payment which was contained in Clause
5 of the letter. However, the petitioner failed to conform to the same which
ultimately led to the plot being resumed on 24.6.1998.
A spate of representations and proceedings were instituted by
the petitioner trying to stall the resumption of the plot and as a consequence,
it made endeavours to seek the possession of the plot, which was ultimately
negatived by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 18.9.2007.
The sole grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner was
that the petitioner was never associated with the proceedings. The petitioner
when applied for the allotment of plot, gave its address as S-555, Greater
Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi and subsequently, the charge of address was
notified to the respondents, but they continued to correspond with it at the
address which did not belong to the petitioner at all. The most of the
correspondence of the respondents addressed to the petitioner is at S-55,
Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi. This, according to the petitioner,
resulted in non-communication of the letters/ orders and, therefore, it could
not meet the requirements as desired of the petitioner by the respondents
and its representative as he was never associated with the proceedings.
C.W.P.No.3083 of 2008
-3-
….
Shri Kirti Uppal, learned counsel for the petitioner, very
strenuously highlighted the grievance of the petitioner as detailed above.
Accordingly, this Court summoned the records of the respondents to
understand the grievance of the petitioner.
The records have been produced and we have perused the same
with the assistance of Shri Ashok Aggarwal, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the respondents.
There is no dispute that the petitioner was associated with the
proceedings as is noticed in the impugned order till February,1997 when the
communications were being addressed at the correct address given by the
petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned order was silent on this aspect. The
record, however, belies the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner totally.
For the first time, notice under Section 17(1) and (2) of the
Haryana Urban Development Authority Act,1977 (for short, `the Act’) was
issued to the petitioner on 16.1.1997 and a reply to it was filed by the
petitioner on 6.2.1997. On 12.2.2007, the representative of the petitioner
was heard and it was asked to pay the whole amount due up to 17.2.1997,
which was not done and the respondents thereafter sent notice under Section
17(3) of the Act by registered post on 9.12.1997. The petitioner asked for
the accounts statement vide its letter dated 28.1.1998 and the respondents
communicated to it vide their letter dated 4.2.1998 that an amount of
Rs.72,09,853/- was due. On 10.2.1998, a notice under Section 17(4) of the
Act was sent and the petitioner was asked to come present on 27.2.1998 for
C.W.P.No.3083 of 2008
-4-
….
personal hearing.
The representative of the petitioner came present on 27.2.1998
with a demand draft of Rs.10 lacs, which was not accepted by the
respondents in view of the fact that the amount in question was
Rs.72,09,853/- and he was informed that the date of hearing would be
3.3.1998.
The representative of the petitioner again presented himself
with a demand draft of Rs.10 lacs on 3.3.1998 which was not accepted by
the respondents, who demanded the entire amount due within a period of ten
days, failing which resumption order shall be passed. Thereafter, from 1998
till 2006, the petitioner was facing recovery proceedings from its bankers
and the company was also constrained to go to the BIFER. On 12.6.2006,
the petitioner again approached the respondents for the plot and its request
was declined. The petitioner filed an appeal on 4.7.2006 against the
resumption order which was passed on 24.5.1998 and the same was
dismissed on 18.9.2007.
A perusal of the record reveals that the communications were sent at
an address which was alien to the petitioner, i.e., S-55, Greater Kailash,
Part-II, New Delhi, even though the petitioner had intimated its changed
address as Plot Nos. 3 and 4, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon, yet, it has
not caused any prejudice to the petitioner, as its representative had
associated himself with the proceedings till the time the resumption order
was passed in the year 1998. The record further reveals that the Estate
Officer had, for the first time, communicated to the petitioner that a sum of
C.W.P.No.3083 of 2008
-5-
….
Rs.72,09,853.55 vide letter dated 4.2.1998, which was sent at S-55, Greater
Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi. Despite this, the representative of the petitioner
had presented himself on 27.2.1998 as desired by the respondents. This is
borne out from the communication written by the petitioner to the Estate
Officer on 3.3.1998 with reference to the meeting dated 27.2.1998. On
3.3.1998, the representative of the petitioner presented himself with a
demand draft of Rs.10 lacs which was not accepted by the respondents and
thereafter, notice under Section 17(4) of the Act was issued to the petitioner,
which was also acknowledged by it. Thus, it is apparent from these
communications exchanged inter se between the petitioner and the
respondents that even though, in all these communications/ orders written
by the respondents the address of the petitioner is S-55, Greater Kailash,
Part-II, New Delhi, yet, its representative was continuously responding to
the same and he had presented himself for personal hearing.
It, therefore, does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner that a
prejudice has been caused to it only because the orders/ communications
were being sent to an alien address. That apart, even if this argument were
to be accepted, then also, the petitioner remained silent from 3.3.1998 till
the year 2006 without any cogent explanation. The plot, in the meantime,
had been allotted in December, 2005 to some one else. The petitioner has
not impleaded the subsequent allottee as a party to the writ petition, who
was undoubtedly an essential party as any order passed qua the plot in
question would have a fall-out on the rights of such allottee.
For the aforesaid reasons when the petitioner has failed to show
C.W.P.No.3083 of 2008
-6-
….
any prejudice caused to it on account of letters/ orders sent at a different
address than the one given by it; as its representative had associated himself
with the proceedings, as also the fact that it has chosen to sleep over its
rights since 1998 without any justifiable explanation and the fact that the
subsequent allottee has not been impleaded as a party, we refrain from
exercising our jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India in favour of the petitioner.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
( Vijender Jain )
Chief Justice
July 15,2008 ( Mahesh Grover )
"SCM" Judge