B.K. Prashar vs State of Haryana

J.L. Gupta, J. (Oral)

The petitioner herein claims a refund of Rs. 825/. He claims to have deposited this amount by way of a bank draft dated March 15, 1972, when he applied for the allotment of a ten marla plot in Panchkula. He has neither been considered for the allotment of the plot nor has the amount been refunded to him. Two legal notices are stated to have been issued on September 14, 1983 and in January, 1984. Copies of these notices have been produced on record as Annexures P. 1 and P.2. It is further claimed that even the counsel for the petitioner visited the office of respondent No. 2 for the purpose. Having failed to get the amount from the respondents, (lie petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

This writ petition was admitted on September 13, 1988. No written statement has been filed. Consequently the averments made in the writ petition have to be accepted as correct.

The amount of money deposited by the petitioner alongwith the application for the allotment of plot was in the nature of an advance. Either the applicant should have been considered and a plot allotted to him. That has not even done. The petitioner was then entitled to the refund of money deposited by him. The respondents have no jurisdiction or right to retain the money. A long period of nineteen years has elapsed. Even the repeated requests for the refund of money made by the petitioner seem to have elicited no response from the respondents.

The attitude, as apparent from the facts of the case, of a statutory body, which is an instrumentality of the Stzate, is neither fair nor legal. A citizen, who deposits the money, does so on the faith that in the event of his not getting a plot, his money is safe, and shall be refunded to him within a reasonable time. No explanation for the long delay or for failure to refund the money has been offered even before this Court. In such a situation, there is no alternative except to allow the writ petition.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the money to the petitioner. He shall also be entitled (the payment of interest at the rate 18% per annum from the date of deposit to the date of actual payment. Needful shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment in the office of the respondents.

Since none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, I pass no order as to costs.