IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.23418 of 2012 Date of Decision : November 29, 2012 M/s Arora Builders and Colonizers .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.
Present : Mr.Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gurjeet Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner.
-.- 1.
Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
--- Surya Kant, J.
(Oral) The petitioner is a builder-cum-developer who set-up a residential colony at Hoshirpuar known as Hoshiarpur Enclave.
The petitioner seeks a direction to the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'PUDA') to issue completion certificate for which the petitioner is said to have applied on 28.3.2004 under Section 14 (1) (ii) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995.
A further direction is sought to the Competent Authority to determine the petitioner's liability regarding external development charges, if any.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records.
Some of the documents appended with the writ petition reveal that at one point of time the residents of the locality were dissatisfied with the basic amenities provided by the petitioner and on their hue and cry a fact finding enquiry was held in which certain deficiencies were noticed.
We, however, find from the CWP No.23418 of 2012 [2].communications sent as late as on 17.2.2012 (Annexure P-13) and 21.3.2012 (Annexure P-14) that the Jalandhar Development Authority has been insisting the petitioner to extend/renew the bank guarantee amounting to Rs.34,00,000/-.
The record reveals that the bank guarantee has not been renewed by the Citizen Cooperative Bank Limited despite that a complaint shall be made to Reserve Bank of India.
As of now, we do not comment upon the conduct of the Citizen Cooperative Bank Limited.
Suffice it to say that the petitioner having averred that all the basic amenities have been provided to the entire satisfaction of the residents of the locality developed by it, however, without expressing any views on merits of such claim and without accepting such claim, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.2 & 3 to conduct a fresh fact finding enquiry and determine (i) whether the petitioner has provided all the promised basic amenities to the residents of the locality?.
(ii) who has the obligation to upkeep and maintain such basic amenities?.
(iii) if question Nos.(i) & (ii) are answered in favour of the petitioner, whether or not the completion certificate should be issued?.
However, such a determination shall not take place without hearing the residents of the locality in representative capacity and it shall be subject to the condition that the petitioner and respondent No.4 shall be required firstly to renew the bank guarantee and then only question of issuance of completion certificate shall arise.
The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Dasti.
$ (SURYA KANT) JUDGE $ November 29, 2012 (R.P.NAGRATH) Mohinder JUDGE