The Haryana
Urban Development Authority & Anr Vs. Roochira Ceramics & Anr [1996] INSC
1307 (23 October 1996)
B.P.
Jeevan Reddy
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Heard
counsel for the parties.
Leave
granted.
The
respondent was allotted an industrial plot. He had to pay 25% of the price in
the beginning and the balance in 6 equal instalments. He only paid the first instalment
but not the rest. A Show cause notice was given to him on 5.9.94 under section
17 (3) of the Huda Act. A notice proposing imposition of penalty was also
issued. These notices could not be served upon him and therefore notices were
served by affixture. A notice dated l0.1.95 was also given providing personal
hearing. The respondent never appeared. Accordingly the plot was resumed under
section 17 (4) of the Act and the amount deposited was forfeited. The appeal
preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the Appellate Authority who held
that though several notices were issued to the respondent, he has been evading
service. It dismissed the appeal holding that in view of the persistent
defaults make by the respondent, there was no ground for interference in
appeal.
The
respondent therefore approached Punjab & Haryana High Court by way of a
writ petition. He pleaded certain financial difficulties. Without recording a
finding as to the correctness of the said plea assuming for the sake of
argument that such a course was permissible in a writ petition the High Court
allowed the petition "keeping in view the financial stringency of the
petitioner, interest of the parties, readiness and willingness of the
petitioner to pay the remaining unpaid amount and to set the controversy at
rest. The High Court further directed that interest shall be charged only at
10% per annum on the amount due and not at the rate of 18% as calculated by the
authority for a part of the period.
We are
of the opinion that in a writ petition it was not open to the High Court to entertian
the plea of financial stringency for the first time. The respondent who had not
responded to repeated notices and had not availed of the person hearing offered
to him, could not be allowed to plead such financial stringency for the first
time before the High Court. Indeed the High Court could not have entertained
such a plea. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that the power under
Article 226 is the power of judicial review. The High Court can only examine
the procedural correctness. It cannot so into the merits of the controversy
like an appellate authority. No finding is recorded by the High Court in this
case that the procedure adopted by the Estate Officer was either not in
accordance with the statutory previsions or was in violation of the principles
of natural justice. The High Court obviously acted as an appellate authority
and that to as a benevolent appellate authority. There is no room for any
benevolence under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the court departs from
law and enters the arena of benevolence the perils and pitfalls are too many to
recount. There will be no objective standards of judging. Justice becomes personlised
It would vary from Judge to Judge. In the absence of any procedural
irregularity, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter.
The High Court also failed to notice that the respondent is guilty of not
paying the instalments as undertaken by him. By interfering on the basis of
unverified and unsubstantiated plea of financial stringency, the Court wound be
encouraging contumacious conduct and breach of undertakings.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed. The Judgment of the High Court is set aside. The
writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
