9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is not possible. Lastly, the petitioners have prayed for direction to respondents to dispose of their representations dated 4.6.2016 and 9.1.2017. Before we deal with the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to state that this writ petition is the fourth writ petition filed by the petitioners. By the first writ petition, bearing Writ Petition No.4840 of 2013, the petitioners challenged the citation issued by Tehsildar dated 17.1.2013 to recover a sum of Rs. 30,35,27,972 + 10% recovery charges. That writ petition was heard on 29.1.2013 when the following order was passed:- "Connect this petition with Writ Petition No. 3570 of 2013 (M/s. Vxl Realtors Pvt Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & others). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issues raised in this writ petition are similar as has been raised in the aforesaid writ petition in which writ petition this Court vide order dated 22.1.2013 granted interim relief and called for a counter affidavit. Subject to petitioner depositing an amount of Rs. 4.5 Crores on or before 7.2.2013 before the respondent no.6 for which an amount according to the petitioner bank draft is ready, no coercive act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Commissioner, U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Ghaziabad regarding charging of penal interest and also alleged that the figure arrived at under the OTS scheme was very high and contrary to the scheme. It was followed by filing of the third writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.29003 of 2016, wherein the petitioners challenged the order of one time settlement dated 31.5.2016 on various grounds. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, while dealing with the challenge, noticed that the petitioners had not complied with the interim order passed in the first writ petition being Writ Petition No.4840 of 2013, as the installments fixed by the order passed therein had not been deposited. The Court also found that an attempt was made by the counsel representing the petitioners to mislead the Court by making incorrect statement that the installments fixed under the order dated 29.1.2013 had been duly deposited. Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere in the matter and dismissed the writ petition by following order dated 21.6.2016:- "A statement has been made by Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners that the instalments as fixed under the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain information from the respondent Corporation under the Right to Information Act and wherefrom it transpired that the amount, which the petitioners are required to deposit under the one time settlement, comprises of a substantial amount as penal interest. They claim to have made certain communications with the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, but they were informed that the interest had been charged in accordance with the OTS scheme and the terms and conditions of the agreement and it was not possible to modify the same. In the aforesaid background, the petitioners have once again approached this Court by way of instant writ petition. At the outset, learned counsel for respondents no.2 & 3 raised a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the instant writ petition. He submitted that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging one time settlement order dated 31.5.2016 having been dismissed and the said order having attained finality, the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the same order again. It is submitted that the petitioners could not be permitted to challenge even the order dated 25/27.4.2016, as it was not challenged earlier and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum and in case of default in payment of the installments, additional interest at the rate of 24% as penal interest. The petitioners never challenged the terms and conditions of the allotment order, but acting upon the same, claim to have deposited 30% of the total amount of premium alongwith interest i.e Rs. 9,33,90,520/- and where after a lease deed dated 14.12.2009 was executed in its favour. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners were also delivered possession of the plot, but thereafter they did not pay a single penny, as a result whereof, recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner Company. It was subject matter of challenge at the instance of the petitioners in the first writ petition and an interim order was granted in its favour on the assurance given to the Court that Rs. 4.5 crores would be deposited on or before 4.2.2013 and the remaining amount in quarterly installments. However, after depositing just Rs. 4.5 crores, no further deposit was made, while the petitioners continued to enjoy the interim protection granted by this Court. The petitioners thereafter represented to the authorities that they are charging ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
