Ajay Prakash Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another

R.K. Agrawal and Kashi Nath Pandey, JJ.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the State Respondents and Sri Suresh Singh for the contesting Respondent No. 2-Yamuna Express Way Industrial Development Authority and have perused the record. With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage without calling for a counter-affidavit.

The case of the Petitioner is that he has been allotted a residential plot by the Respondent No. 2 in Part A of Sector 20 in October, 2009. As per own case, he was supposed to deposit certain amount within two months which he could not deposit. On 27.7.2010 he has filed an application for condoning the delay in making such deposit, which is pending before the Respondent authorities.

Sri Lalit Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is always ready and willing to pay the amount of instalments alongwith due interest and had made applications several times for extension of time for accepting the money as such there is no occasion for cancelling the allotment as it should be resorted to as a last measure. He relied upon the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. U.T., Chandigarh and Others,

Sri Suresh Singh learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents however submitted that the power to grant extension of time for making deposit of the over due instalments rests with the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Executive Officer shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

Sri Lalit Kumar learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has however laid great stress that the cancellation order be set aside. We are not inclined to set aside the cancellation order at this stage inasmuch as the question whether the time for making payment is to be extended or not is to be decided by the Chief Executive Officer. Applications have already been made by the Petitioner on which a decision is yet to be taken.

We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the Chief Executive Officer, Respondent No. 2 to take appropriate decision in accordance with law within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order alongwith the copy of applications is filed by the Petitioner before him. If the Chief Executive Officer, Respondent No. 2 extends the time to make deposit the balance amount, it goes without saying that the order of cancellation has to be recalled.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.