SUNIL BHATIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the demand letter dated 10.10.2016 (Annexure P-8) issued by respondent No. 4-Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad with respect to booth No. 116, Sector 37, Faridabad to the extent that it includes the component of penalty on account of non-construction charges even for the period the booth remained resumed. It has been prayed that respondent No. 4 be directed to communicate the entire outstanding dues to the petitioner in respect of the said booth after excluding the element of penalty imposed on account of non-construction from the date of the order of resumption till the resumption order was set aside.

(2.) Vide allotment letter dated 18.08.1989 the petitioner was allotted a commercial booth No. 116, Sector 37, Faridabad on freehold basis. The petitioner had purchased the booth in an auction. The price of the booth was Rs. 4,60,000/-. Initially, the petitioner deposited Rs. 46,000/- being 10% of the price as bid money. Rs. 69,000/- being 15% of the price of the booth was deposited within 30 days of the issue of the allotment letter.

(3.) The relevant terms and conditions of the allotment letter are as under: