Harbinder Bajwa Vs. State of Haryana Etc. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of state government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law - 16328 of 1993. 15900 of 1993 and 500 of 1994, fail and are dismissed.v.k. jhanji, j.1. this shall dispose of civil writ petitions no.16328 of 1993, 15900 of 1993 and 500 of 1994 as common question of law and facts arises in all the three writ petitions. for facility of reference facts, are taken from c.w.p. no.16328 of 1993.2. petitioner was allotted house no. 155, sector 6, karnal, measuring 405sq.yards by the haryana urban development authority (in short the huda) for rs.70470/-(tentative price). 10 per cent of the tentative price was deposited along with the application and the remaining 15 per cent was deposited on receipt of allotment letter dated 15-4-1982. the remaining balance amount was to be paid in six instalments which according to the petitioner has already been paid. later, huda demanded additional amount to the tune of rs. 2004.75p, 9193.50p, 10311.50p, 28446.65p. 17041.55p, 13851.00p and 23424.65p vide annexures p-2, p-3, p-4, p-5 and p-6 which was paid by the petitioner. petitioner has averred that he has been served with show-cause notice dated 26-11-1993 (annexure p-7) under section 17(i) and 17(ii) of the huda act intimating that an amount of rs.63826/- is still outstanding against him and he has been called upon to show cause as to why a penalty of rs.6382/- be not imposed upon him. petitioner has further averred that on receipt of the demand/show-cause notice, he requested huda many a times requesting for supply of details of the exact amount of additional cost of acquisition of land paid by huda to the land owners on the basis of which the calculations of additional price in question have been made and demanded from the petitioner, but the same have not been supplied to him. challenge to the demand thus, has been made on the ground that huda cannot recover the enhanced price from the petitioner without affording an opportunity of being heard because the price has been enhanced in an arbitrary manner without disclosing anything regarding enhancement of compensation in land acquisition proceedings. in the writ petition, petitioner has also challenged the demand of interest made by huda.3. huda in its written statement has denied that the petitioner ever visited its office; rather it has been stated that in notice dated 8-2-1990 detailed calculations on its over-leaf were given and therefore, there was no need to supply fresh calculations. it has also been stated that notice dated 26-11-1993 was served on the petitioner to give him an opportunity of being heard in the matter and it was specifically stated therein that the petitioner may either appear in person, or through duly authorised representative on 20-12-1993 at 11 a.m. but the petitioner never visited the office of respondent no.4. respondent have also placed on record the statement showing calculations of recovery of enhanced compensation in respect of sector 6, karnal, as annexures r-3 to r-5 and r-8 to r-12. in regard to interest, it has been stated that the interest at the rate of 15 per cent is charged only in the case of non depositing of additional price within the stipulated period.4. it has firstly been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount of additional price has been calculated without giving any show cause notice and hence, the demand notice is contrary to the principles of natural justice.5. it is not in dispute that the original price fixed is only tentative and any enhancement in the cost of the land awarded by the competent court under the land acquisition act is also payable proportionately as determined by huda. as per the allotment letter, the additional price determined is required to be paid within 30 days of its demand. the allotment letter further provides that in case the additional price is not paid within time, the estate officer is empowered to take action in accordance with the provisions of section 17 of the huda act, regulations 2(b) and 4 define 'additional price' and 'tentative price' respectively, while regulations 10 and 12 prescribe the liability to pay additional price and the consequences of non-payment of additional price in time respectively. the same read as under'2. definitions - in these regulations unless the context otherwise requires(a) xxx xxx(b) 'additional price' and 'additional premium' means such sum of money as may be determined by the chief administrator in respect of the sale or lease of land or building by allotment, which may become payable by the transferee or lessee with respect to land or building sold or leased to him in a sector on account of the enhancement of compensation of any land or building in the same sector by the court on a reference made under section 18 of the land acquisition act, 1894 and the amount of cost incurred in respect of such reference.xxx xx xxx4. fixation of tentative price/ premium(1) the tentative price/premium for the disposal of land or building by the authority shall be such as may be determined by the authority taking into consideration the cost of land,, estimated cost of development, cost of buildings and other direct and indirect charges as may be determined by the authority from time to time.(2) an extra 10% and 20% of the price/premium shall be payable for 'preferential' and 'special preferential' plots respectively.10. liability to pay additional price/premium:- (1) in the case of sale/lease of land/building by allotment the transferee or lessee shall be liable to pay to the authority in additional to the tentative price/premium, the additional price/premium if any determined in respect thereto under these regulations.(2) the additional price/premium shall be payable by the transferee or lessee within a period of thirty days of the date of demand made in this behalf by the estate officer without interest or in such number of instalments with interest as may be determined by the chief administrator.12. in case the price or any instalment thereof is not paid by the transferee within 30 days from the date it falls dues the estate officer shall proceed against such transferee in accordance with the provisions of section 17 of the act.it is clear from a conjoint reading of the above regulations that in the matter of allotment of plots and fixation of price, huda takes into consideration the cost of the land, estimated cost of development, cost of buildings and other direct and indirect charges, as may be determined from time to time. however, while determining the additional prices the factors which are to be taken into consideration are enhanced compensation of land, cost of acquisition which includes interest, solatium and legal expenditure incurred in defending the acquisition. in ease the additional price is not paid within 30 days on the date it falls due the estate officer is competent to pass an order of resumption and order forfeiture of the whole or any part of the money not exceeding 10 per cent of the total price of the consideration money, interest and other dues payable in respect of the sale of the land or building or both. the petitioner having accepted allotment of the plot subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter is liable to pay additional enhanced price of the land on account of enhancement of compensation by the court on a reference under section 18 of the land acquisition act and the amount of costs incurred in respect of such reference. as regards the contention that petitioner was not associated in determining the additional price, it has been held by a division bench of this court inm.s. dutta and ors. v. state of haryana and ors., 1989(1) p.l.r. 524 that 'their is no requirement in law that the allottee has to be associated in determining the additional price recoverable from it. of course, if the allottee disputes the calculation made by the estate officer, he or she can move the authorities for inspection of the record to ascertain how the additional price was worked out and if any discrepancy is found it could be brought to the notice of the estate officer who will rectify all genuine mistakes, but the allottee cannot insist that before assessing the enhanced price an opportunity of hearing ought to afforded to him because this requirement neither flows from the statute nor on the ground of equity because the matter is purely of calculation of additional price.' the first contention thus has no merit and is rejected.6. it has next been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that invariably, after enhancement of compensation by the court, huda does not pay/deposit the amount for payment to the land owners for sufficiently long time and the same is deposited only after the property of huda is attached and thereafter, the interest accrued on account of delay is charged from the plot holders for no fault of theirs. counsel thus contended that the demand of interest for that period, i.e. after making of the award by the courts till the amount is paid/deposited by huda for payment to the land owners, is illegal, unjust and arbitrary.7. as to this, we would observe that no factual material is on record. no particulars have been given by the petitioner with regard to date of acquisition, date of award by the court and the date of deposit/payment by the huda to the land acquisition collector. in absence thereof, this contention cannot be gone into and is accordingly, rejected.8. it has then been contended by counsel for petitioner that the interest demanded by huda at the rate of 15 per cent is illegal, unjust and arbitrary and the petitioner is not liable to pay the same. in answer to this learned counsel appearing for huda has stated that the interest is charged at the rate of 15 per cent only from those allottees who do not make payment of enhanced amount within 30 days as provided under regulation 10. counsel has also stated that the concession for making payment in instalments at the rate of 15 per cent is given on the basis of judgment of full bench of this court in chander mani v. the haryana urban development authority, kurukshetra and anr., (1990-2)98 plr 6 whereby the allottees who had not paid enhanced amount in time, were allowed to make payment in instalments with interest at the rate of 15 % per annum, this contention too being devoid of any merit is rejected.9. it has lastly been contended by counsel for petitioner that when the first enhancement was made in the additional price the total plotable area was taken to be 5.55.160 sq. yards, but in the subsequent demand the plotable area was taken to be 3,65,904 sq.yards. in this context, he made references to annexures r-8 to r-11. this contention too is without any merit. from a comparative reading of calculation-sheets, annexures r-8, r-9 and r-12, it is clear that when the first additional price was demanded on account of enhance compensation the matter in regard to the area for school, police post, dispensary, fire station, water works etc. was not taken into consideration as no provision for these had been made. but later the area for these services was kept apart, thus reducing the plotable area and the additional price has been fixed in accordance with it. under these circumstances, we neither find any ambiguity in the calculations nor any illegality in the demand made by the huda,consequently, the writ petitions, c.w.p. nos. 16328 of 1993. 15900 of 1993 and 500 of 1994, fail and are dismissed. no costs.