Reqular Second Aooeal Noe5039 of 2009 lO v. Sahoo Baba

dat ed 6112002 Exhibit P2 I t shows t hat t he plaint iff had been afforded sufficient opport unit yof hearingby t he com pet ent aut horit ies before passing t he order of resum pt ionin respectof t he Boot h I n quest ion I t m ay be m ent ioned here t hat t he plaint iff had raised a disput eregardingt he act ual am ount t o be paid by him disput ingt he rat e of int erest as I evied by t he HuD on t he balance considerat ion t o be paid by t he plaint iff t o 1llDA in respectof t he boot h in disput e The plaint iff did not m ake any paym ent even t owards t he undisput ed am ount showed any illegalit yin t he resum pt ionorder I eadingt o t he dism issalof his appeal dat ed 6e112002 Exhibit P2J The plaint ifflallot t ee failed t o pay t he priceof allot t ed Boot h t o HUD as per t he t erm s and condit ions of allot m ent by it HUeDAl Rashm i 2012.11.17 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of t he Original PHHC,Chandigarh t he allot m ent I et t er Several not ices were issued JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 72 4b a l1 Reqular Second Apoeal N5039 of 2009 t O a M l t o t he plaint iff t o m ake paym ent of t he default ed am ount However he failed t o do so Ult im at ely as m ent ioned above t he Com m ercial Boot h allot t ed t o t he plaint iff was resum ed by t he HUDA Sect ion 17 of t he Act The fact s and circum st ances show t hat a great deal of i nduI gencewas shown by t he H U DA aut horit les t o t he plaint ifft o m ake paym ent but t he needful was not done by him plaint iffl The I earned counsel for t he plaint ifespondent challenged t he resum pt ionorder t he ground t hat t he HU DA could not dem and int erest t he rat e of 18 per cent per annum However I 0 not Ond any m erit in t his argum ent of t he I earnedcounsel for t he I Z C I Z Z t l The allot m ent of Boot hs et c t o t he public is a price discovery m echanism which t he cont ract ual When t he priceI S not paid wit hin t im e it result s in I oss of revenue t o t he St at e Tim e I s t he essence t he cont ract such I ike t ransact ions Propert yprlces rise by t he day and wit hin t he st ipulat edperiod cont ract ual obligat ionsare fu I filI ed t hen I n t hat t he St at e sufferlosses which cannot be com pensat edin t erm s of int erest Or Pelle I f t im e overruns t o be allowed on flim syexcuses for not paying t he m oney I n t im e t hen t he ent ire exercise would fail I n view of t he above t he t o resum e t he Boot h in quest ion had been validly and properly exercised by t he com pet ent aut horit yand t he Court s below should not have int erfered in t he orders passed t he com pet ent a ut horit ies of t he HUeDeAe Result ant lyt his appealis allowed t he ludgm ent sand decrees passed by t he Court s below are set aside and suit of t he plaint ifespondent I S dism issed However t here shall be no order as t o cost s Rashm i 2012.11.17 13: 37 True Scanned Copy Of t he Original PHHC,Chandigarh 025 2011 1 2 MOHI NDER PALI OUCGE JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document