HEMANT GUPTA J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to an order dated 06.02.1992 passed by the Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab, Chandigarh, whereby the request of the petitioner the auction of Grain Shop Plot No.216 in Mandi Sunam was cancelled after deducting 10% of the consideration money. Such order was affirmed by the learned Commissioner on 14.09.1992 (Annexure P -9), but in further revision, the learned Financial Commissioner ordered the refund of the entire consideration amount deposited by the petitioner. Still aggrieved, the petitioner is in a writ petition before this Court.
(2.) AS per the facts on record, an auction was conducted for the sale of Grain Shops on 04.10.1991 by the Administrator. The petitioner was the highest bidder of the plot No.216 for Rs.4,36,000/ -. The petitioner deposited 25% of the bid money at the spot through demand draft. It has further come on record that the petitioner was also the highest bidder of three other shops i.e. shop Nos.217, 218 and 219. The petitioner did not deposit the earnest money in respect of these three plots. The Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab passed an order on 04.08.1994 holding that there is no power to cancel the allotment of plots without adopting the procedure laid down under Section 13 of the Punjab New Mandi Townships (Development of Regulation) Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act'). It was found that Section 13 of the Act would not be applicable as the petitioner has not committed any default. In respect of Plot No.216, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that due to the terrorist threats and death of brother -in -law of the petitioner, the petitioner could not deposit the balance amount of sale consideration, which led the petitioner to submit the application (Annexure P - 5) to seek refund of the full payment on 03.02.1992. Considering the said request, the Administrator passed an order dated 06.02.1992 of resumption under Section 13(3) of the Act after deducting 10% of the consideration money. The cheque for an amount of Rs.64,889 was also sent along with the said order.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain judgments to contend that since no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing an order on 06.02.1992, therefore, the action of cancellation of the plot is not tenable.;