Artemis Medicare Services Ltd. vs Estate Officer No. II,HUDA

Hemant Gupta, J.—Challenge in the present writ petition is to a communication/order dated 27.5.2014 demanding a sum of Rs. 19,54,31,272/- along with the penalty of Rs. 1,95,43,127/- (Annexure P. 1), on account of non payment of enhanced/additional price. Challenge in the writ petition is also to the show cause notice dated 31.7.2014 calling upon the petitioner as to why the order of resumption be not passed.

The petitioner was allotted the land measuring 8.30 acres vide letter of allotment dated 15.2.2006 (Annexure P. 6) for a tentative price of Rs. 16,06,88,000/-. Subsequently, the land was demarcated at the time of handing over possession as 8.12 acres. The price for the allotted land was fixed at Rs. 15,72,03,200/-. A Deed of Conveyance was executed on 19.7.2007.

The petitioner received two notices dated 22.1.2013 (Annexure P. 9 and P. 10) demanding additional price of Rs. 13,09,03,207/- and Rs. 6,91,41,669/- respectively. Another notice dated 29.11.2013 was issued to the petitioner for payment of additional price of Rs. 18,33,79,960/-. Thereafter, on 21.1.2014 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why penalty of Rs. 1,95,43,127/- be not imposed upon the petitioner for default of payment of Rs. 19,54,31,272/-. The petitioner submitted reply but a demand was raised on 27.5.2014, as mentioned above, to pay the said amount within 15 days.

It is admitted in the writ petition itself that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal u/s 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short ''the Act''), but such appeal is neither effective nor efficacious as the appeal would be heard by the Department itself. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was denied opportunity of hearing and thus, the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, this Court will have the jurisdiction to set aside the order impugned herein. It is pointed out that initially two notices bearing No. 1252 and 1430 were issued on 22.1.2013, but in respect of the first notice, the calculations to claim enhanced amount of compensation were not given. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was served with a notice on 22.4.2014 to appear on 17.4.2014, therefore, there could not be any hearing which satisfies the test of natural justice. Thus, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing to appear by way of a reasonable notice. In fact, the date of hearing was earlier than the date of issuance of the notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jatinder Sood Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and the Hon''ble Supreme Court judgments in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, and ABL International Ltd. and Another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others,

Though the petitioner has attached the calculations which are part of Memo No. 1430 dated 22.1.2013, but it appears that the petitioner has failed to put on record the calculations appended to Memo No. 1252 dated 22.1.2013. The second page of the show cause notice contains the words ''P.T.O.'' as are contained in Memo No. 1430, but the petitioner has not attached what was contained in the next page. Still further, the first notice was issued in January, 2013, but for more than one year, the petitioner has not deposited any enhanced amount of price. There appears to be some mistake in the notice dated 21.4.2014, but that is after more than 14 months of the first notice calling upon the petitioner to deposit the additional price. However, we need not examine the said question as the petitioner has the statutory remedy under the Act. It is not sufficient to say that the appeal lies to the department. The legality and validity of the statute is not in issue. Provision of an appeal is the creation of a statute. The remedy of appeal or revision under the Act is provided before the authorities of HUDA. Similar provision exists in many other similar statutes. Therefore, we find that in the face of the statutory remedy available, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.

In Jatinder Sood''s case (supra), the writ petition was filed after the departmental remedy was exhausted. After exhausting the departmental remedy, this Court found the violations of the principles of natural justice.

In Whirlpool Corporation''s case (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the existence of alternative statutory remedy is not a constitutional bar but is self imposed restrictions and that such alternative remedy is not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.

In the present case, neither the vires are in issue nor the petitioner is seeking enforcement of any Fundamental Right. The enforcement is of the contractual rights conferred under a Statute. Merely because the date of hearing has been mentioned earlier than the date of notice may not be sufficient to return a finding that there is violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has been served with the notice way back in January, 2013, but it did not make payments demanded. The writ petition has been filed with incomplete documents. Therefore, the said judgment provides no assistance to the petitioner.

In ABL International Limited''s case (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that if the State acts in an arbitrary manner, an aggrieved party can approach the Court by way of a writ petition. No doubt, the jurisdiction of the writ Court is wide, but the Court is to examine the facts of each case before deciding to intervene in the matter. Since the issue is relating to demand of money arising out of the conditions of allotment, we find that such issue does not warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court only for the reason that the amount demanded is huge.

In view of the above, we do not wish to interfere in the present writ petition in the face of the statutory remedy being available to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed.