Dismissed

Prem Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2014CWP/11081/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged 15% compound interest levied on unpaid balance of diesel pump site bid amount during a long delay. Court held interest imposed pursuant to earlier conditions was valid; petitioner's delay justified recovery. Writ dismissed under Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Rules.

What did the court decide?

Challenge to levy of 15% compound interest dismissed. Petitioner's grievance rejected.

Prem Chand Bansal Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.11081 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.05.2014

¶4

¶5

Prem Chand Bansal . . . . Petitioner

¶6

VS.

¶7

State of Haryana & Ors. . . . . Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

¶10

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Present: Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner

¶16

Ms. Palika Monga, DAG Haryana

¶17

Mr. GS Wasu, Advocate for respondents No.2&3

¶18

¶19

. SURYA KANT, J

¶20

(1). The petitioner’s grievance in the instant case is against imposition of 15% compound interest on the balance amount of allotment price of Diesel Pump site for the period commencing from the date of auction i.e. 08.10.2004 till the issuance of allotment letter dated 05.11.2011. The case of the petitioner is that no such compound interest could be levied on 75% of the allotment price for the period prior to issuance of allotment letter.

¶21

(2). The facts may be noticed briefly. Retail outlet site (diesel pump) measuring 3138.78 sq.yards at New Grain Market, Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar was put to public auction on 08.10.2004. The petitioner gave the highest bid of Rs.1,06,50,000/- and deposited 25%

¶22

of it at the fall of hammer.

¶23

Vishal V 2014.08.08 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

��

¶25

�� ��

¶26

(3). The Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula approved the auction vide memo dated 06.01.2005 (Annexure P2) subject to the following conditions which were directed to be inserted in the allotment letter:-

¶27

“1. The allotment letter of the purchaser of the Diesel Pump site shall only be given after the production of no objection certificate from the concerned District Magistrate.

¶28

2. The facility of service station shall not be available on this site.

¶29

3. In case the site is not used for specific purpose, the same shall be reverted to Market Committee, Bilaspur.”

¶30

(emphasis applied)

¶31

(4). As he could not produce No Objection Certificate from the District Magistrate, which was a pre-condition for issuance of allotment letter, the petitioner informed the Market Committee, Bilaspur vide his letter dated 04.12.2006 (Annexure R2) that he was trying his best to secure the licence from an Oil Company as the No Objection Certificate can be issued by the District Magistrate thereafter only. The petitioner further stated as follows:-

¶32

“So in this regard I assure your honour that as soon as I get the letter I will approach the honorable board immediately. I hope that since the matter is under process and the deal may be finalized any time.

¶33

Vishal V 2014.08.08 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

��

¶35

�� ��

¶36

I further assure your honour that as soon as the require letter i.e. licence from some oil company is received, I shall make the payment of instalment on time without any delay.”

¶37

(5). It appears that the petitioner applied in response to the advertisement issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for allotment of retail outlet dealership at Bilaspur as he knew that unless dealership was allotted, No Objection Certificate cannot be issued by the District Magistrate.

¶38

(6). As the petitioner failed to produce the No Objection Certificate, the Marketing Board vide letter dated 06.08.2007 directed the Market Committee, Bilaspur to cancel the bid after issuing notice to him. A decision to cancel the bid was consequently taken on 22.05.2008. The Market Committee, however, instead of passing an order to this effect sought some guidelines from the Board. The Board though reiterated its decision but also took a sympathetic view and gave final call to the petitioner for which notice dated 12.09.2008 was issued.

¶39

(7). The petitioner, however, failed to produce the NOC despite final opportunity. The Board, therefore, directed the Market Committee vide letter dated 18.06.2009 to cancel the bid and refund the amount deposited by him.

¶40

(8). The petitioner approached the Civil Court at Jagadhari seeking injunction to restrain the authorities from cancelling the

¶41

Vishal V 2014.08.08 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

��

¶43

�� ��

¶44

auction. It is not known whether any ad interim injunction was granted or not in his favour as the petitioner has chosen to conceal the factum of filing civil suit in the writ petition. Only the respondents have disclosed this incomplete information.

¶45

(9). Meanwhile, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. issued Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner on 30.10.2010 (Annexure P3) and on its basis, he applied to the District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar to issue the requisite NOC.

¶46

(10). The District Magistrate after getting reports from various Departments, issued No Objection Certificate on 17.03.2011 (Annexure P4).

¶47

(11). In the light of these subsequent events which took place during the pendency of the Civil Suit, the matter was placed before the Board of Directors of the Marketing Board who again took a sympathetic view and keeping in view the fact that the Market Committee had not yet cancelled the allotment, the Board in its meeting held on 12.09.2011 resolved to issue allotment letter to the petitioner subject to the following terms and conditions:-

¶48

“a) That the balance amount of the bid shall be deposited by the allottee along with 15% compound interest from the date of bid to the issue of allotment letter on the balance amount.

¶49

b) That the land shall be used for the purpose of setting up of petrol pump on. In case the land is used for any other purpose, the plot shall be resumed after deduction of 10% of the total amount

¶50

Vishal V 2014.08.08 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

��

¶52

�� ��

¶53

deposited by the bidder and no interest shall be given to the bidder on such refund.”

¶54

(12). Thereafter, the allotment letter dated 05.11.2011 (Annexure P6) stipulating that the petitioner shall be liable to pay 15% compound interest from the date of bid to the date of issuance of allotment letter on the balance amount. The petitioner got possession of the site on 08.11.2011.

¶55

(13). Assailing the levy of 15% compound interest, one of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that no condition of production of No Objection Certificate from the District Magistrate was imposed at the time of auction. It is also urged that the aforesaid stipulation is unconscionable and has been imposed unilaterally in an arbitrary and illegal manner.

¶56

(14). It is also contended that the imposition of compound interest for the period prior to the date of allotment is contrary to the provisions contained in the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000.

¶57

(15). We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the record. In our considered view, the challenge laid by the petitioner is totally misplaced and calls for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. We say so for the reason that condition of requiring No Objection Certificate from the District Magistrate was communicated by the Board to the Market Committee on 07.10.2004 (Annexure R1) before the auction

¶58

Vishal V 2014.08.08 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶59

��

¶60

�� ��

¶61

was held. The said condition was unequivocally conveyed to the petitioner while accepting his bid vide memo dated 06.01.2005 (Annexure P2). The petitioner accepted that condition and kept on gaining time on the pretext that he was awaiting for allotment of dealership and consequential No Objection Certificate from the District Magistrate. To save the allotment, the petitioner also requested to extend the period and undertook to pay the instalments. Having accepted the terms and conditions before issuance of allotment letter, the petitioner now cannot wriggle out from their consequences.

¶62

(16). The auction was held in the year 2004. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent-authorities are to be blamed for delaying the allotment or delivery of possession. He got the subject site allotted in his favour after more than seven years of the auction. (17). On a query, it is informed by learned counsel for the Board that as per the written instructions received by him vide memo dated 08.08.2013, the Collector rate of the land in the year 2013 was Rs.12,000/- per sq.yard as against the approximate rate of Rs.3400 per sq.yards offered by the petitioner. The allotment price in the year 2013 even as per the Collector rate would have been more than Rs.3,75,00,000/-. As is apparent from the facts on record, the petitioner manipulated with the local Market Committee who did not cancel the allotment despite directions issued by the Board.

¶63

Vishal V 2014.08.08 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶64

��

¶65

�� ��

¶66

(18). It is undeniable that the balance 75% allotment amount was payable in six-half yearly instalments. In this manner, the petitioner would have been required to deposit the balance amount of Rs.80 lacs within three years of the allotment i.e. by the end of year 2007. He retained that amount with him and was also able to save the allotment. The public authority thus cannot be made to suffer financial losses on account of the inaction or delay, motivated or otherwise, but attributable to the petitioner alone.

¶67

(19). The petitioner has failed to point out any rule and/or statutory provision which is said to have been violated by levying 15% compound interest. The decision taken by the authorities to keep the allotment intact subject to setting off their loss partially thus need not be interfered with either in equity or law.

¶68

(20). Dismissed.

¶69

��  �� ��

¶70

Vishal V 2014.08.08 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Prem Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virender Singh Katarya and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Shallu and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

S.D. Adarsh Vidayala Vs State of Hry and Others

Nepal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ram Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.