J.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) IS the action of the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Patiala in demanding interest from the Petitioner @ 20.5% illegal? This is a short question that arises for consideration. A few facts, as relevant for the decision of this case, may be briefly noticed.
(2.) ON November 11, 1998, the Respondent issued an advertisement informing the public that "Free hold built up commercial booths at Patiala' shall be auctioned on November 20, 1998. In this advertisement, it was inter alia stated that the successful bidder shall have to deposit 10% of the bid amount at the fall of the hammer and 15% within 30 days. The balance amount of 75% could be paid within 60 days without any interest. In the alternative, the amount equal to 75% could be paid in four equated yearly instalments with interest @ 15%. The Petitioner participated in the auction of a built up both. Her bid was accepted. Vide letter dated February 15, 1999, the Petitioner was allotted both No. 22 in the Urban Estate Phase 1, Patiala. In this letter of allotment, it was specifically mentioned that the amount of Rs. 82,750/ - paid by her had been adjusted as 25% of the sale price. The balance amount of Rs. 2,48,250/ - could be paid "in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter without any interest or in four yearly instalments alongwith interest @ 20.5% per annum." The first instalment was to become due at the expiry of one year from the date of auction. The Petitioner represented. She claimed that the rate of interest as mentioned in the advertisement was 15%. Thus, the Authority could not levy interest @ 20.5%. She also pointed out that even in another advertisement issued on October 2, 1999, the rate of interest had been mentioned as 15% per annum. On these premises, the Petitioner claimed that the action of the Authority in levying interest at the rate of 20.5% was arbitrary and unfair.
(3.) THE representation submitted by the Petitioner was not decided. She approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 8620 of 2000. This petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated January 18, 2001. The Chief Administrator of the Respondent/Authority, was directed to decide the Petitioner's case by passing a speaking order and after examination of the record relating to the two advertisements.;