TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the offer of the commercial plots in a public auction with a super imposed condition i.e. on as is where is basis and after having accepted the - terms and conditions of the allotment letter, including installment facility for payment, Respondents cannot say that they are not bound by the terms and conditions of the auction notice, as well as that of the allotment letter. On facts also, court have found that there was no inordinate delay on the part of PUDA in providing those facilities. Hence, the High Court was not justified in holding that the Respondents are not liable to pay the interest, penal interest and penalty for the period commencing from 1.6.2001 to 31.12.2002 for the belated payment of installments. Consequently, the judgments of the High Court are set aside and the writ petitions would stand dismissed and the appeals would stand allowed as above. There will be no order as to costs. - Civil Appeal No. 5887 of 2012 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8734 of 2009) and Civil Appeal No. 5888 of 2012 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22823 of 2009) - - - Dated:- 16-8-2012 - K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan And Madan B. Lokur, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- being 75% of above piece of the writ, can be paid in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of auction or in 4 equated yearly installments along with interest @ 15 % per annum. 6. The annual quoted installment with interest @ 15% per annum will be payable as per the following schedule: Installment Due date Amount Installment of Interest Total amount payable 1st 16.3.2002 5,95,313/- 3,57,188/- 9,52,501/- 2 nd 16.3.2003 5,95,313/- 2,67,891/- 8,52,501/- 3rd 16.3.2004 5,95,312/- 1,78,594/- 7,73,906/- 4th 16.3.2005 5,95,312/- 89,297/- 6,84,609/- 23,81,250/- 8,92,970/- 32,74,220/ In case the installment is not paid on the 10th of the month followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 124-125. PUDA submitted that the electrical works had been completed by 24.12.2002, public health works had been completed by 22.11.2002 and the development of the commercial pocket had been completed by 20.12.2002. 8. After having examined the contentions raised by both, Respondents and PUDA, the Additional Chief Administrator rejected the representation vide his order dated 31.3.2007, which was challenged by the Respondents before the High Court by filing CWP No. 6929 of 2007. The High Court allowed that CWP vide its judgment dated 5.11.2008 placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Shantikunj Investment (supra), which is impugned before this Court. 9. Mrs. Rachana Joshi took us through the terms and conditions of Auction Notice and also to the various terms and conditions of the allotment, as well as the judgment of this Court in Shantikunj Investment (supra). 10. Shri P.S. Patwalia submitted that the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition, since there was a failure on the part of PUDA in providing the necessary facilities for enjoyment of the plots allotted to the Respondents. Further, it was also contended by the learned senior Counsel that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies like parking, lights, roads, water, sewerage etc. If the allottees were not interested in taking the commercial plots on as is where is basis, they should not have accepted the allotment and after having accepted the allotment on as is where is basis, they are estopped from contending that the basic amenities like parking, lights, roads, water, sewerage etc. were not provided by PUDA when the plots were allotted. Over and above, the facts would clearly indicate that there was not much delay on the part of PUDA to provide those facilities as well. As noted, the electrical works and health works were completed by 24.12.2002 and 22.11.2002 respectively and all the facilities like parking, lights, roads, water, sewerage etc. were also provided. 13. On facts, we find that this is not a case where PUDA was callous or indifferent or had caused an inordinate delay in providing the basic facilities to allottees. In our view, the High Court has not properly comprehended the scope of the judgment of this Court in Shantikunj Investment (supra) and the terms and conditions of the auction. This Court, in that case, has specifically held as follows: 26. ... It is the common exper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eafter be heard to say that he would not pay the balance of the price/premium or the stipulated interest on the delayed payment, or the ground rent, on the ground that the site suffers from certain disadvantages or on the ground that amenities are not provided. 14. We are of the view that the judgment in Amarjeet Singh (supra) is a complete answer to the various contentions raised by the Respondents. We may reiterate that after having accepted the offer of the commercial plots in a public auction with a super imposed condition i.e. on as is where is basis and after having accepted the - terms and conditions of the allotment letter, including installment facility for payment, Respondents cannot say that they are not bound by the terms and conditions of the auction notice, as well as that of the allotment letter. On facts also, we have found that there was no inordinate delay on the part of PUDA in providing those facilities. 15. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in holding that the Respondents are not liable to pay the interest, penal interest and penalty for the period commencing from 1.6.2001 to 31.12.2002 for the belated payment of installments. Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
