THE HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. versus ROOCHIRA CERAMICS AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 638 · Decided: 23-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND 
ANR. 
v. 
ROOCHIRA CERAMICS AND ANR. 
B 
OCTOBER 23, 1996 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) 
Haryana Urban Development Authority Act : 
C 
Sections 17(3), 17(4)-/ndustrial plor-Allotment of-Non- payment of 
instalment amounts--Penalty notice and intimation regarding personal hear-
ing-Party never appeared-Plot resumed and deposit amount f oif eited-Ap-
peal against the order dismissed-Writ Petition filed-High Court allowing it 
on the ground of party's financial stringency, readyness and willingness of the 
party to pay the remaining amount and reducing interest on the amounts 
D due-On appeal, held : It was not open to the High Court to entertain the 
plea of financial stringency for the first time-High Court failed to notice that 
the party was guilty of not paying the instalments as undertaken by him-ln-
teiference on the basis of unverified and unsubstantiated plea of financial 
stringency, the Court would be encouraging contumacious conduct and breach 
E of undertaking-flo finding recorded by the High Court that the procedure 
adopted by the Estate Officer was either not in accordance with the statutory 
provisions or was in violation of principles of natural justice. 
Constitution of India, 1950. 
p 
Art. 226-Power of judicial review-High Court could only examine the 
G 
procedural co"ectness-ft could not go into the merits of the controversy like 
an appellate authority. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13187 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 113.96 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14676 of 1995. 
Ravindra Bana for the Appellants. 
H 
P.P. Rao and C.K. Sucharita for the Respondents. 
638 
H.U.D.A v. ROOCIDRA CERAMICS 
639 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A 
Heard counsel for the parties. 
Leave granted. 
The respondent was allotted an industrial plot. He had to pay 25% B 
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 C 
notice dated 10.1.95 was also given providing personal hearing. The respon-
dent 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 D 
persistent defaults made 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 E 
in a writ petition the High Court allowed the writ 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. 
F 
We are of the opinion that in a writ petition it was not open to the 
High Court to entertain the plea of financial stringency for the first time. 
The respondent who had not responded to repeated notices and had not 
availed of the personal hearing offered to him, could not be allowed to 
plead such financial stringency for the first time before the High Court. G 
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 go into the merits of the controversy like an appellate 
authority. No finding is recorded by the High Court in this case that the H 
640 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A procedure adopted by the Estate Officer was either not in accordance with 
the statutory provisions or was in violation of the principles of n

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.