Suraj Pal vs Haryana Urban Development Authority

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This order shall dispose of two civil revisions, namely, CR No. 2500 of 2013 titled as "Suraj Pal Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector 14, Urban Estate, Gurgaon and others" and CR No. 2597 of 2013 titled as "Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector 14, Urban Estate, Gurgaon and others".

In short, the suit is filed by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, challenging the show cause notice dated 7.12.2007 and subsequent order of cancellation dated 21.1.2008 passed by the HUDA. They also filed application for temporary injunction, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court. Both, the Corporation as well as the dealer, have preferred the present revision petitions against the order of the Appellate Court by which injunction has been declined.

On 23.4.2013, when the notice of motion was issued, following order was passed:-

Suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction has been filed by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, who is respondent No. 4 herein, for challenging the show cause notice dated 07.12.2007 (Annexure P-6) and subsequent order of cancellation (Annexure P-9) passed on 21.01.2008. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. Vide order dated 30.01.2013 the trial Court allowed the aforementioned application by restraining the defendants i.e. respondents No. 1 to 3 from sealing the retail outlet of the plaintiff which is being run by the present petitioner. Against the order passed by the trial Court, the defendants filed the appeal which was allowed by the lower appellate Court and the ad interim injunction set aside. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defendants have cancelled the lease of the petrol pump on account of non-deposit of the amount due for installation of additional filling points. The show cause notice was replied by the plaintiff-Corporation wherein it denied its liability to pay the demanded amount. It is submitted that the demand raised by the defendants is not justified as the amount was required to be paid as per the underground container and not the number of dispensers or the nozzles which are situated at petrol pump for filling the vehicles. It is also submitted that similar issue was involved in CWP No. 8256 of 2013 filed by the plaintiff-Corporation in respect of a different petrol pump which came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on 15.04.2013 when notice of motion was issued and on deposit of 25% of the amount demanded the petrol station which had been sealed was ordered to be opened by the authorities. It is also submitted that the plaintiff Corporation is ready and willing to pay 25% of the demanded amount Rs. 29,44,760/- and in that regard has got demand draft for Rs. 7,36,190 prepared on 19.04.2013.

Notice of motion for 15.05.2013.

To be heard alongwith CWP No. 8256 of 2013.

In the meantime, 25% of the demanded amount upto date be deposited by the plaintiff Corporation with the defendants. Once the deposit is made, the defendants shall not seal the retail outlet.

Both the revision petitions were tagged with CWP No. 8264 of 2013, in which the following order has been passed on 15.7.2013:-

This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 8264 and 8266 of 2013. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged orders of different dates whereby their lease agreement has been cancelled.

While issuing notice of motion, it was directed that on deposit of 25% of the amount demanded, petrol stations, which have been sealed, shall be reopened by the authorities. It has not been disputed that against those orders, the remedy of appeal is available, but the petitioners in both the aforesaid writ petitions have not availed the remedy of statutory appeal before the Administrator, who exercises the power of Chief Administrator, for deciding such an appeal. Counsel for the petitioners prays for a liberty to prefer an appeal before the Chief Administrator, HUDA and further prays the said authority be directed to decide the same in accordance with law. Counsel for the respondents states that he has no objection if the petitioner is allowed to file an appeal against the impugned orders within a reasonable time and the same shall be considered and decided by the Chief Administrator, HUDA in accordance with law.

In view of the above consensus arrived at between the parties, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Chief Administrator, HUDA to decide the appeals, to be filed by the petitioners within one month from today, expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and by passing a speaking order, without being influenced by the comments made earlier by any of the Officers.

It is ordered that till the decision of the appeals, interim orders shall continue. The petitioners shall, however, continue to pay rent regularly.

Disposed of.

In so far as CR No. 2500 of 2013 is concerned, following order has been passed by this Court on 15.7.2013:-

List as per roster.

It will be open for the respondents to move necessary application for vacation/modification of the interim order before the learned Single Judge in the light of the decision of the civil writ petition, bearing No. 8256 of 2013 (M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others).

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that even as per Section 50 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 [for short ''the Act''], the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred and as far as the petitioners are concerned, they have a remedy u/s 17 of the Act of filing of the appeal. It is submitted that if appeal is filed against the impugned action/order passed by the HUDA within a period of 30 days from today then the question of limitation would not be raised by the respondents.

In view of the order passed in CWP No. 8264 of 2013, if such appeal is filed by the petitioner(s), the Chief Administrator, HUDA, shall decide the appeal expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months, after affording opportunity of hearing by passing a speaking order, without being influenced by the comments made earlier by any of the officers. It is further ordered that till the decision of the appeals, interim orders shall continue.