The Faridabad Ex-Sainik and Karamchari Coop House Building Society Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

In the present writ petition, following prayers have been made:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that after calling for the records of the case and after perusing the same:-

¶17

1) To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing Annexures P/30 and P/34.

¶18

2) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to exclude the development charges in respect of Storm Water drainage and sewerage connections payment whereof had already been made to the erstwhile Faridabad Complex Administration/Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. 3) And/Or to issue any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and

¶19

PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶20

CWP-129-1996 (O&M) [2]

¶21

proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶22

4) Service of advance notice on the Respondents may kindly be dispensed with.

¶23

5) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the Petitioner.

¶24

It is further prayed that recovery and other penal proceedings as per notice Annexures P/30 and P/34 may kindly be stayed during the pendency of the present writ petition.

¶25

It is further prayed that operation of Annexures P/30 and P/34 may kindly be stayed during the pendency of the present writ petition in this Hon'ble High Court.

¶26

CHANDIGARH

¶27

24.2.1997”

¶28

On account of there being no interim order in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the present writ petition, the licence of the petitioner was subsequently cancelled and after several rounds of litigation, the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, Chandigarh (Appeals) vide order dated 01.04.2016 (Annexure A-4) had remanded the matter back to the Director General, Town and Country Planning to pass a speaking order on merits. It is further apparent that the licence of the petitioner-Society was finally cancelled vide order dated 03.04.2019 which order has been annexed as Annexure A-5 along with an affidavit filed by the petitioner-Society and against the said order, appeal has been filed by the petitioner-Society before the Additional Chief Secretary, Town and Country Planning, Haryana and the said appeal i.e., Appeal No.17 of 2019 is still pending.

¶29

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per their case, in case impugned orders/letters vide which the revised

¶30

PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶31

CWP-129-1996 (O&M) [3]

¶32

external development charges have been charged from the petitioner are set aside then as a matter of necessary consequence, the cancellation of licence would also be liable to be set aside.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have submitted that there are several factors which are to be considered in the present matter and in case the petitioner wishes to raise the plea with respect to EDC in the appeal filed by the petitioner then liberty be granted to the respondents as well to raise all the pleas to oppose the said appeal.

¶34

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and fair stand taken on behalf of the petitioner and respondents, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following observations/directions:-

¶35

i) It would be open to the petitioner-Society to raise all the pleas to challenge the demand of the respondents with respect to EDC, which has been made in letters Annexures P-30 and P-34, in pending Appeal No.17 of 2019 filed against the order dated 03.04.2019 vide which licence of the petitioner-society has been cancelled. In case the petitioner wishes to file any additional affidavit in the said pending appeal along with the relevant documents, the petitioner would do the same within a period of five weeks from today.

¶36

ii) It would also be open to the respondents to file an affidavit in support of their plea to sustain orders/letters (Annexures P-30 and P-34) and also to rebut the averments made in the affidavit, if any, filed by the petitioner-Society within the abovesaid time. The said additional affidavit would be filed by the State-respondents within a period of three weeks from the date, after lapsing of the abovesaid five weeks

¶37

PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.14 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶38

CWP-129-1996 (O&M) [4]

¶39

as granted to the petitioner-Society.

¶40

iii) In case an affidavit, as directed in direction No.(i), is filed by the petitioner-Society and the pleas with respect to the challenge to the letters (Annexures P-30 and P-34) are raised before the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.17 of 2019 then the Appellate Authority would consider the said pleas along with other issues raised and would decide the said pleas along with the other pleas/issues after hearing all the parties concerned.

¶41

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the legality of the orders/letters (Annexures P-30 and P-34) and it would be open to both the parties to raise all the pleas in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority would consider the said pleas in accordance with law and decide the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶42