- (1.) The writ petition challenges the order of Respondent No. 2 passed on 22.7.1980, cancelling the lease of Site No. 3855, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh which was allotted to the Petitioner. A subsequent order had been passed on 12.12.1989, by Respondent No. 3 holding that installment has not been paid within time. The challenge in the writ petition was that cancellation had been made without serving notice to her. The lease was for a long period of 99 years and the installment payable was 13,048/-.
(2.) From the records, I find that site was conditionally restored on 22.7.1980, subject to payment within a particular period stipulated. Since the amount had not been paid within the said stipulated period, the Advisor to the Administrator of U.T. Chandigarh held that she was not entitled to any indulgence and dismissed her appeal filed before him.
(3.) There is no representation for the Petitioner before this Court. I have examined the case with the assistance of the Counsel appearing for the Respondents-Chandigarh Administration. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents refers to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corportion, Chandigarh and Ors. v. Vipin Kumar Jain in SLP (Civil) No. 12968 of 2006 where the Hon'ble the Supreme Court had held as follows: Auction is a price-discovery mechanism which falls in the contractual realm. In the present case we are concerned with commercial sites. Auction is basically an exercise in rasing revenues for the Government. When the price is not paid within time it results in loss of revenue to the State. Time is the essence of the contract in matters concerning auction. Property prices rise by the day.;