KURIAN,J. - (1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 7th December, 2006 passed in C.O.C.P. No. 1286 of 2005. It may be necessary to refer to the bare facts.
(2.) The respondent No.1-contempt petitioner/allottee has approached the High Court with a grievance that the appellant-Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (for short "PUDA") through its successor Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (for short "GMADA") has charged excess rates for allotment of plots. Pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court, the rate was reduced from Rs. 3600/- to Rs. 1400/- per square yard. Thereafter, the respondent-contempt petitioner/allottee filed Civil Writ Petition No.2851 of 2005 for payment of interest which has been disposed of by judgment dated 21st March, 2005. The judgment reads as follows:- "We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the interest upon the amount which has been refunded. We are afraid that such kind of indulgence cannot be granted unless justice demand notice is served upon the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to serve justice demand notice upon the respondents. If such a notice is served upon the respondents within 15 days from today, the respondents shall take conscious and cautious decision thereon within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Disposed of."
(3.) Since there was no response from the PUDA within the time stipulated by the High Court, the respondent-allottee filed Contempt Petition No.1286 of 2005. During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, order dated 20th January,2006 was passed declining to grant interest saying that there was no policy to make payment for interest. The order reads as follows:- JUDGEMENT_91_LAWS(SC)7_2017.htm;