Ajay Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Others

CWP-18366-2017 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
284 CWP-18366-2017 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.11.2026
Ajay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA
Present: Ms. Ojaswini Gagneja, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Panwar, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate and
Ms. Hitika Sabherwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
INDEX
Sr. Contents Paras Pages
No.
1 Challenge in the present writ 1 1-2
petition
2 Arguments on behalf of the 2-8 2-6
petitioner
3 Arguments on behalf of the 9 6-7
respondents
4 Analysis and findings 10-23 7-16
CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION:-
1. In the head note of the petition, following prayers have been
made:-
“CIVIL WRIT PETITION under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction
especially in the nature of Certiorari against the arbitrarily issued
allotment letter by the respondent no. 2 dated 11.06.2017 (Annexure
P-6) wherein the petitioner was successfull highest bidder of the plot
no. 24 in sector 10 Gurugram, has been allotted to the petitioner but
the area of the plot as it was shown in the advertisement on the
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-18366-2017 (O&M) [2]
website of the respondent and for which petitioner has participated
and deposited the amount for the same area and was declared
successful bidder was reduced arbitrarily from 75.625 sq. mtr. to
45.38 sq. mtr. And basement rights were also waved off by the
respondents.
It is prayed that issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing
the respondents that they can not arbitrarily reduce the size of the
plot from 75.625 Sqm. To 45.38 Sqm. when the bid was made by the
petitioner for 75.625 Sqm. Alongwith the basement rights but now
the respondent has reduced the size of the plot and offered the small
plot without basement rights. The respondents are demanding
exactly the same price for this smaller plot also as it was demanded
for the plot offered in the e auction notice.
It is prayed that issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing
the respondents that they can not forfeit the amount deposited by the
petitioner till the disposal of the present writ petition and further
stay the proceedings regarding the plot no.24 in sector 10 at
Gurugram (plot in question) which was allotted to the petitioner.
AND
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may issue any other
appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may
deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case.”
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that several
sites/plots for construction of double storey shops along with basement
including site No.24, were advertised by the HUDA (now HSVP) authorities
through e-auction notice on https://haryanaeprocurement.gov.in . It is submitted
that the site which is site in question i.e., Site No.24 was shown to be
measuring 75.625 square meters having a reserve price of Rs.1,27,80,350/- and
the security amount, at the rate of 2%, was stated to be Rs.2,55,607/-. It is
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-18366-2017 (O&M) [3]
further submitted that registration for the e-auction commenced on 16.05.2017
from 09:00 am to 06.06.2017 till 05:00 pm and the auction was scheduled to be
conducted on 11.06.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
after seeing the price of the site in question and also the area, the petitioner
made up his mind to participate in the said e-auction and thus, deposited an
amount of Rs.1000/-, the receipt regarding which has been annexed as
Annexure P-2 along with the writ petition. It is submitted that since one of the
conditions to participate in the e-auction was deposit of 2% of the reserve price
in advance, thus, the petitioner, in compliance of the said condition, deposited
an amount of Rs.2,55,607/- vide receipt dated 07.06.2017 (Annexure P-3). It is,
however, submitted that the actual payment regarding the same was made on
31.05.2017, which fact is apparent from the bank statement which has been
annexed at page 26 of the paper book.
3. It is further submitted that the petitioner was declared as the
successful highest bidder in respect of plot No.24 in Sector 10, Gurugram
(commercial site) in the e-auction conducted by the respondent Department on
their website and the respondent-Department duly communicated to the
petitioner of his being the successful bidder. It is submitted that the respondent-
Department on the website has specifically mentioned that site No.24, which
had been allotted to the petitioner, measured 75.625 square meters and the said
fact is also apparent from the copy of the print out taken by the petitioner from
the website of the respondent-Department, which has been annexed as
Annexure P-4. It is further submitted that since the petitioner was required to
deposit 8% of the bid amount within the stipulated time thus, the petitioner, in
compliance with the said condition, deposited an amount of Rs.10,32,428/-
which was 8% of the total bid amount within time and the receipt regarding the
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-18366-2017 (O&M) [4]
same has been annexed as Annexure P-5 along with the bank statement, which
clearly reflects that the said amount was debited from the bank account of the
petitioner on 12.06.2017.
4. It is submitted that since the petitioner had duly complied with all
the conditions, thus, the respondent authorities were required to issue an
allotment letter giving the details of the area of the site in question, which
measured 76.625 square meters along with basement, however, to the surprise
of the petitioner, the respondents issued an allotment letter dated 11.06.2017
which was received by the petitioner on 12.07.2017, mentioning the area of the
site allotted to be 45.38 square meters and also further mentioned that same was
without a basement although price of the plot was kept the same i.e.,
1,28,80,350/- and no deduction was done in spite of the fact that the area in
square meters had been substantially reduced and no basement was provided. It
is submitted that the aforesaid terms and conditions were in complete violation
of the terms of the e-auction notice and the receipts and other documents issued
by the respondent-Department itself.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that immediately
upon receiving the said allotment letter, the petitioner gave a representation
dated 14.07.2017 to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurugaon, specifically stating
that the size of the plot which was allotted was not as per the e-auction notice
and thus, prayed that either the plot of the same size be given to the petitioner
or the price of the plot be reduced proportionately. It is submitted that when the
grievance of the petitioner was not redressed, the petitioner filed the present
writ petition, which came up for hearing on 18.08.2017. It is further submitted
that, on 13.11.2017, the petitioner with a view to finally settle the matter, even
stated that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the amount is refunded
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-18366-2017 (O&M) [5]
along with interest, however, in spite of the same, the respondents have not
even refunded the amount along with interest.
6. It is further submitted that even a perusal of the written statement
which has been filed by the respondents would show that the respondents have
themselves admitted their mistake and have specifically stated that they have
wrongly mentioned the size of the DSS in question. It is argued that the
reliance placed by the respondents in the written statement on the document
dated 14.05.2017/15.05.2017 (Annexure R-4) as well as on other documents, is
completely misconceived, inasmuch as even the said document (Annexure R-
4), contains alterations in respect of the dimensions which have been
mentioned. Moreover, despite the decision having been taken to correct the size
of plot, yet the advertisement which was issued subsequent to the same, on
16.05.2017, clearly shows that the DSS in question measured 75.625 square
meter and also had a basement. It is further submitted that even the reliance
placed on the e-mails (Annexures R-1 and R-2) does not even remotely further
the case of the respondents as the said e-mails were written by one Kapil Ghai,
who himself has not filed any affidavit affirming that any corrigendum had
been uploaded.
7. It is further submitted that a perusal of Annexure R-1 dated
31.05.2017 would show that the respondent authorities were directed to
confirm as to whether the corrigendum had been uploaded or not but, however,
no subsequent e-mail from the respondent authorities to the said Kapil Ghai has
been annexed to show that the said corrigendum was actually uploaded. It is
submitted that the e-mail (Annexure R-2) is dated 13.02.2018 which was sent
after the notice of motion was issued by this Court. It is also submitted that, as
far as the site plan (Annexure R-3) is concerned, there is nothing on record to
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-18366-2017 (O&M) [6]
show that the said site plan was also uploaded along with the advertisement and
no reference to the site plan has been made in Annexure P-1. It is further
submitted that the said site plan is shown to be a revised lay out / demarcation
plan and the original plan has not been annexed. It is submitted that even as per
the said site plan, it has not been stated that the size in question i.e., DSS no.24
does not have a basement, whereas with respect to other sites, the said fact has
been specifically mentioned. It is further submitted that at any rate, the
document dated 11.06.2017, which has been generated from the online portal of
the respondent authorities and is subsequent to 31.05.2017, would again show
that the site in question measured 75.625 square meters.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the said
circumstances, at least the amount which has been deposited by the petitioner
i.e., Rs.12,88,035/- deserves to be returned to the petitioner along with interest.
It is submitted that various circulars issued by the Haryana Urban Development
Authority, Panchkula would show that the respondent authorities charge simple
interest @ 18% per annum in cases of delayed payment of installments and
thus, the respondents should be directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% per
annum on the amount deposited by the petitioner, from the date of payment by
the petitioner till the date of refund by the respondents.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has fairly
submitted that there was an inadvertent mistake in the e-auction notice
(Annexure P-1), whereby, the size of the site in question was wrongly
mentioned as 75.625 square meters, with basement, whereas the actual site
which was to be auctioned was measuring 45.375 square meters and did not
have a basement. It is submitted that a decision to carry on the auction was
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-18366-2017 (O&M) [7]
taken vide Annexure R-4 and the officers concerned which included the
Assistant, Deputy Superintendent, Account Officer and Estate Officer-I, after
considering the correct dimensions, had found that instead of 75.625 square
meters, the correct dimension / area would be 45.375 square meters and it was
only after the said correction was made, the authority had decided to proceed
further with the e-auction. It is further submitted that the corrigendum was also
issued in the present case, which fact is apparent from the e-mail dated
31.05.2017 (Annexure R-1) and the e-mail dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure R-2)
and the said corrigendum was issued on 31.05.2017 which was prior to the date
of auction i.e., 11.06.2017 and thus, it is submitted that the respondents cannot
be faulted in this regard. It is further submitted that the respondents had
annexed the site plan (Annexure R-3) along with the e-auction notice, which
was also to be read by the petitioner before participating in the e-auction. It is
submitted that thus, in the said circumstances, the present writ petition is
meritless and deserves to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
10. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the respondents and are of the opinion that the limited
prayer made on behalf of the petitioner qua refund of money along with interest
deserves to be allowed for the reasons which have been detailed hereinafter.
11. It is not in dispute that the respondents no.2 and 3 had advertised
several commercial sites i.e., Double Storey Shop with basement (DSS),
including DSS no.24 vide e-auction notice on the portal https://
haryanaeprocurement.gov.in. A copy of the e-auction notice has been annexed
as Annexure P-1 and the same is an undisputed document. A perusal of the
same would show that the registration for e-auction was to start from
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-18366-2017 (O&M) [8]
16.05.2017 and was to end on 06.06.2017 and the e-auction was to be held on
11.06.2017. Several commercial sites, including site no.24, for the purpose of
construction of double storey shop with basement were offered. The size of the
site in question was specifically mentioned as 75.625 square meters and the
reserve price for the same was stated to be Rs.1,27,80,350/- and the security
amount, at the rate of 2%, of the site in question was stated to be Rs.2,55,607/-.
It is the case of the petitioner that after taking into consideration the reserve
price and the area of the commercial site and also the fact that the petitioner
was permitted to make basement also, the petitioner decided to participate in
the said e-auction and was successful, inasmuch as, the petitioner was the
highest bidder for the commercial plot/site no.24 in Sector 10, Gurugram.
12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, for the purpose of
participation, had got himself registered and had paid the amount of Rs.1000/-
vide receipt dated 29.05.2017 which has been annexed as Annexure P-2 and
had further paid an amount of Rs.2,55,607/- which was the 2% amount of the
total reserve price, which was required to be deposited prior to participating in
the e-auction. The said amount was deposited on 31.05.2017 as is apparent
from the bank statement, which has been annexed as (Annexure P-3 colly.
running page 26 of the paper book). It is also not in dispute that immediately
after being declared as the highest bidder with respect to the site in question,
₹
the petitioner had deposited an amount of 10,32,428/- on 12.06.2017 as is
apparent from the bank statement (Annexure P-5 colly, page 29) and had
deposited the said amount within the time prescribed. Importantly, the printout
taken by the petitioner from the website of the respondent-department dated
11.06.2017 clearly shows that the area of the site in question i.e. Commercial
Site No.24, Sector 10, Gurugram, in respect of which the petitioner was the
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-18366-2017 (O&M) [9]
highest bidder, measured 75.625 square metres. The document (Annexure P-4)
has not been disputed on behalf of the respondents during the course of
arguments.
13. In spite of the above, the respondents, instead of issuing the
allotment letter in consonance with the abovesaid terms and conditions, issued
the allotment letter dated 11.06.2017, mentioning the area of the site in
question to be 45.38 square metres instead of 75.625 square metres and also
mentioned that the said double storey shop was without basement, which two
terms were in complete violation of the terms and conditions of the E-auction
notice, receipts and even the screenshot of the web portal dated 11.06.2017
(Annexure P-4). In the allotment letter dated 11.06.2017, the price of the plot
₹
was mentioned as 1,28,80,350/- and thus, the price was stated to be the same
amount which the petitioner had bid for commercial site measuring 75.625
square metres, with basement and there was no proportionate reduction made in
the said price. The fact that the petitioner had already paid a sum of
₹
12,88,035/- was noticed in clause 3 of the said allotment letter. It is the case of
the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the said allotment letter
was received by the petitioner on 12.07.2017, which fact has neither been
specifically denied nor any such document has been annexed to show that the
said allotment letter was given to the petitioner prior to the said date.
14. Thereafter, the petitioner immediately on 14.07.2017 gave a
representation, which fact has been admitted by the respondents in the written
statement, specifically stating that the size of the plot which had been
mentioned in the allotment letter was not as per the E-auction
notice/advertisement and thus, a prayer was made to either allot the same size
of the plot i.e. 75.625 square metres or to reduce the price of the plot based on
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-18366-2017 (O&M) [10]
the new size. However, neither of the two prayers of the petitioner were
accepted. The petitioner thereafter, immediately filed the present writ petition
in which on 18.08.2017, notice of motion was issued by the Coordinate
Division Bench of this Court. On 13.11.2017, the petitioner had even made a
statement that he would be satisfied in case refund along with reasonable
interest is given and the respondent-authorities were directed to consider the
said aspect. Even the said limited prayer made by the petitioner was not
accepted.
15. The respondents in the written statement have admitted that the
size of the site in question in the E-auction notice/advertisement was mentioned
as 75.625 square metres along with basement, although it was their case that
the same was an inadvertent error. In spite of having admitted their mistake, yet
the respondent-authorities have not even chosen to return the money to the
petitioner with interest. If a prospective purchaser, after seeing the
advertisement is made to believe that the commercial site is of a particular size
and has certain facilities including that of a basement and after seeing the
reserve price, decides to make an investment, then he cannot be subsequently
told that neither the plot of the same size can be made available nor reduction
in price or even return of money along with interest would be paid to the said
prospective purchaser, in spite of the fact that it was the respondent-authorities,
who had as per their own case, made a mistake. It was on account of the
description of the property offered in the E-audction notice that the petitioner
had made the investment and had a legitimate expectation that the commercial
site, which would be allotted to the petitioner, would be of 75.625 square
metres and would also have a basement. As is apparent from the facts of the
case, the petitioner had moved swiftly and with utmost diligence and had
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-18366-2017 (O&M) [11]
immediately filed the representation and had also approached the Court within
a period of two months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter dated
11.06.2017. In the said circumstances, it was also open to the petitioner to press
his plea for alternate plot of the same size or to seek reduction in the price of
the plot in consonance with the reduction of the size of the plot, however, the
petitioner has fairly chosen to make a very limited prayer.
16. The pleas raised in defence do not even remotely call for not
granting the limited prayer made by the petitioner. Reliance placed upon the
document (Annexure R-4) by the learned counsel for the respondents does not
in any way further the case of the respondents and in fact, highlights certain
aspects against the respondents. Apparently Annexure R-4 is a calculation sheet
for the updation/reduction of reserve price of sites to be auctioned. It is
highlighted on behalf of the respondents that several officers of the HUDA
(now HSVP) including the Estate Officer-I had corrected the dimensions with
respect to the size and had thereafter stated that the E-auction could be carried
out. Clauses 2 and 3 of the said calculation sheet (Annexure R-4) are
reproduced hereinbelow:
XXXX XXXX XXXX
2. Name of Site Double Storey shop with
basement site No.22, 24, 25
to 42, Sector-10
3. Dimension 5.50X13.75M=75.625 sqm
11X4.125=45.375 sqm
12. Under Clause 2, it is specifically stated that the double storey
shop including Site No.24, Sector 10, Gurugram, which is the site in
question is “with basement”. The dimensions were also mentioned as 5.50 X
13.75 metres, which comes to 75.625 square metres, however, the same had
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-18366-2017 (O&M) [12]
been cut and thereafter the figure had been mentioned with a pen as 11 X
4.125 metres, total measuring 45.375 square metres. The said noting is
signed by the officers on 12.05.2017 and had been further countersigned on
14.05.2017 and on 15.05.2017. However, in spite of the same, in the
advertisement dated 16.05.2017, which had been issued subsequent to the
said noting (Annexure R-4), again the size of the plot of the commercial site
in question had been mentioned as 75.625 square metres and there was also
a mention that the said double storey shops were with basement, which fact
is in consonance with the said noting but is contrary to the stand now sought
to be taken to the effect that no basement is to be provided with the shop. It
is further relevant to mention that the printout dated 11.06.2017 (Annexure
P-4), from the website of the respondent-authorities, which is subsequent to
the alleged corrigendum issued by the respondent on 31.05.2017 also shows
that the size of the site in question is 75.625 square metres and thus, in case
the stand of the respondents is to be taken on face value, then it would be
apparent that the respondents have committed mistakes at every stage, thus,
prejudicely affecting the rights of the petitioner and now are not even ready
to return the money along with interest.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents has tried to agitate that a
corrigendum was issued on 31.05.2017, which was also uploaded on the
website prior to the date of the auction i.e. 11.06.2017. The documents in the
said regard, which have been highlighted are Annexures R-1 and R-2. The
said two documents do not prove that any such corrigendum was uploaded,
much less brought to the notice of the petitioner, who had already paid the
₹ ₹
initial receipt of 1,000/- and the amount of 2,55,607/- by 31.05.2017. A
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-18366-2017 (O&M) [13]
perusal of Annexure R-1 would show that one Kapil Ghai had sent an email
to the respondent-authorities stating that the corrigendum had been uploaded
and had specifically stated that the respondent-authorities were required to
crosscheck the said fact at their end and confirm with the said Kapil Ghai as
to whether the same had been done or not. No email to the said Kapil Ghai
has been annexed along with the written statement or has been brought to the
notice of this Court, from the side of the respondent-authorities to show that
in response to the said email dated 31.05.2017, the respondents after
verifying, had checked and confirmed with Kapil Ghai that the corrigendum
had been uploaded. No affidavit has also been filed on behalf of Kapil Ghai
to the effect that any such corrigendum was uploaded. Annexure R-2 is an
email dated 13.02.2018, which is subsequent to 18.08.2017, the date on
which notice of motion was issued in the present case. The said email is
again sent by Kapil Ghai to the respondent-authorities and not by the
respondent-authorities to Kapil Ghai and cannot be taken as a proof of the
alleged corrigendum having been uploaded much less brought to the notice
of the petitioner.
18. Even the reliance on the document (Annexure R-3), which is
stated to be a site plan, does not call for rejection of the limited prayer made
by the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents that the site plan
(Annexure R-3) was uploaded along with auction notice. A perusal of the
auction notice dated 16.05.2017, which is an admitted document, would
show that no reference with respect to any site plan has been made in the
same. No document has been annexed along with the written statement or
has been brought to the notice of this Court to even remotely show that any
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-18366-2017 (O&M) [14]
such site plan was also uploaded on the website. Even the date of the said
site plan is not clear from the document (Annexure R-3) and the said
document (Annexure R-3) is stated to be a revised site plan and the original
site plan has not been annexed. Further, a perusal of the site plan (Annexure
R-3) which has been highlighted on behalf of the respondents would show
that with respect to site No.24, there is no mention that the same is “without
basement” whereas with respect to the other shops, it is specifically
mentioned that the same are “without basement”. Moreover importantly, on
behalf of the respondents, there is no clarification as to in case the
corrigendum was issued and was also uploaded on 31.05.2017, then, as to
why in the status dated 11.06.2017 (Annexure R-4), which was a printout
taken from the online portal of the respondents and which document has not
been disputed before this Court, the area of the site in question has been
mentioned as 75.625 sq. mtrs. and it is thus apparent that either the pleas
taken by the respondents are false or the respondents have made repeated
mistakes, making the petitioner firmly believe that the plot which was to be
allotted to the petitioner and for which he was the highest bidder measured
75.625 sq. mtrs. and also has a provision for a basement. Thus, the action of
the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.
19. Having found the action of the respondents to be arbitrary and
illegal, the next question which arises for consideration before us is, as to
what relief is to be granted to the petitioner. Although the relief prayed for in
the present writ petition is a higher relief, but learned counsel for the
petitioner has fairly struck to the stand taken on 13.11.2017 before the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court and has prayed for return of money deposited
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-18366-2017 (O&M) [15]
along with interest. With respect to interest, learned counsel for the
petitioner has made reference to several circulars issued by the HUDA
authorities to show that the rate of interest, charged by the HUDA authorities
for delayed payment of installments, is 18% per annum.
20. On a pointed query raised by this Court, learned counsel for
respondents No.2 and 3, on instructions, has very fairly submitted that the
rate of interest, which was being charged by the HUDA authorities in the
year 2017, which is the relevant period, was 12% per annum simple interest
in case a person choose to pay by installments and was 15% per annum
simple interest in case there is delayed payment. In the said circumstances,
we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in case the
amount paid by the petitioner is returned to him along with 12% per annum
simple interest.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very graciously accepted
the same so as to bring an end to the present uncalled for litigation which
had arisen on account of the mistakes made by the respondent-authorities at
several stages.
22. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the
present writ petition is partly allowed and respondents No.2 and 3 are
directed to pay the amount deposited by the petitioner i.e., Rs.12,88,035/-
along with 12% per annum interest from the date of payment made by the
petitioner till the date the same is refunded by the respondents No.2 and 3.
The said payment (along with accrued interest) would be made to the
petitioner within a period of two months from today. In case the said
payment is not made within the aforesaid period, then, the respondents
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-18366-2017 (O&M) [16]
would be liable to pay 15% per annum interest for the delay beyond the
period of two months.
23. Before parting, we must appreciate the preparation of the
learned counsel for the petitioner, who very vehemently, articulately and
diligently argued the case.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
( DIVYA SHARMA )
JUDGE
04.11.2026
PK/DK/PNT
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document