Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ROOCHIRA CERAMICS & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/10/1996
BENCH:
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Heard counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
The respondent was allotted an industrial plot. He had
to pay 25% 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 notice dated l0.1.95 was also given providing
personal hearing. The respondent 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 persistent defaults make 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 in a writ
petition the High Court allowed the 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.
We are of the opinion that in a writ petition it was
not open to the High Court to entertian the plea of
financial stringency for the first time. The respondent who
had not responded to repeated notices and had not availed of
the person hearing offered to him, could not be allowed to
plead such financial stringency for the first time before
the High Court. Indeed the High Court could not have
entertained such a plea. It has been held repeatedly by this
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Court that the power under Article 226 is the power of
judicial review. The High Court can only examine the
procedural correctness. It cannot so into the merits of the
controversy like an appellate authority. No finding is
recorded by the High Court in this case that the procedure
adopted by the Estate Officer was either not in accordance
with the statutory previsions or was in violation of the
principles of natural justice. The High Court obviously
acted as an appellate authority and that to as a benevolent
appellate authority. There is no room for any benevolence
under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the court departs
from law and enters the arena of benevolence the perils and
pitfalls are too many to recount. There will be no objective
standards of judging. Justice becomes personlised It would
vary from Judge to Judge. In the absence of any procedural
irregularity, the High Court had no jurisdiction to
interfere in the matter. The High Court also failed to
notice that the respondent is guilty of not paying the
instalments as undertaken by him. By interfering on the
basis of unverified and unsubstantiated plea of financial
stringency, the Court wound be encouraging contumacious
conduct and breach of undertakings.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The Judgment of the
High Court is set aside. The writ petition filed by the
respondent shall stand dismissed. No costs.