High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51358-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10462 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mukesh Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Yadav,Rajeev Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vibhanshu Vaibhav Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Shri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Vibhanshu Vaibhav, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
Legal Reasoning
2. With consent of counsel for the parties, the instant petition is being disposed of finally without inviting any formal counter affidavit. 3. The petitioner has assailed a communication dated 17.01.2025 by Officer on Special Duty, Aligarh Development Authority, Aligarh addressed to the petitioner in reference to his application dated 23.12.2024 by means of which the petitioner requested the respondent, Development Authority, to correct the name of the allottee in the allotment order issued in respect of Plot No. 2-G-4. The communication states that the request for amendment in the allotment letter would be considered only after the petitioner deposits the remaining installments/interest and submits affidavit. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he submitted an online application along with registration money of Rs.1,60,000/- in pursuance of a scheme floated by the respondent-Authority in the name of 'Transport Nagar Yojana' in the year 2023. The on-line application of the petitioner (ORA20230426132731147) dated 26.04.2023 clearly mentions the name of the petitioner as the person applying for allotment. In pursuance of the said application, the petitioner was allotted Plot No. 2-G-4 measuring 200 square meters. The respondents have uploaded the application status on their website, which mentions the name of the allottee as Kailash Chandra instead of the petitioner. The petitioner on coming to know of the said error made application before the Authority for correction of the name in the allotment order. The case of the petitioner is that Kailash Chandra in whose name allotment order came to be issued also filed his affidavit on 09.08.2024 stating that he did not make any application for allotment under the Scheme and application No. ORA20230426132731147 in pursuance of which allotment has been issued pertains to the petitioner and therefore, he has no objection in case name of the petitioner is substituted in his place. The petitioner also filed his affidavit dated 07.12.2023 in support of his prayer to correct the allotment order. The respondent, Development Authority, issued a public notice in the newspaper on 07.12.2024 inviting objections in respect of the prayer made by the petitioner for entering his name as allottee of Plot No. 2-G-4. Specific case of the petitioner is that no one has filed any objection in pursuance of the said public notice. The respondent, Development Authority, instead of making correction in the allotment order, issued the impugned communication. On 21.03.2025 (Annexure-S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit), another communication has been issued by the Development Authority stating that in the affidavit submitted by the petitioner, he did not mention that he will not raise objection in respect of the interest, as mutually agreed. The petitioner has been required to submit additional affidavit mentioning the same. Thus, filing of additional affidavit that he will not object to the interest has also been made a condition precedent for carrying out correction in the allotment order. 5. Case of the petitioner is that the respondents have issued a final statement of account again in the name of Kailash Chandra and wherein apart from interest due on the balance amount of premium and installments, he has been saddled with additional interest by way of penal interest @ 15%. Submission is that the petitioner is ready to pay interest @ 12% on the installments and the balance amount of premium as per the scheme but the imposition of penal interest is wholly illegal and arbitrary. He submits that since the mistake was on part of the Development Authority and therefore, imposition of any penal interest and that too @ 15% per annum is wholly illegal and arbitrary. In other words, the petitioner has very fairly agreed to pay the balance amount due towards installments and interest @ 12% as soon as the correction is carried out.
Legal Reasoning
6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the penal interest has been charged not @ 15% per annum but only 3% in addition to the 12% interest chargeable on the balance amount of permium/installments. He submits that as soon as the petitioner pays the amount, the correction would be carried out. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and we are of the opinion that in the fact of the instant case when the allotment order came to be issued in name of a wrong person on account of mistake of the respondent Development Authority, it cannot charge any penal interest from the petitioner whether it is at the rate of 15% per annum or 3%. The petitioner has very fairly agreed to pay interest on the balance amount of premium/installments @ 12% per annum. 8. The insistence on part of the respondent, Development Authority, that the petitioner should first pay the amount and then only correction would be carried out and to file affidavit giving up his legal right to challenge the imposition of interest are action which smack of total arbitrariness and despotism. Unless, the allotment order is issued in the name of the petitioner, he cannot be expected to pay any sum. We are constrained to observe that the Development Authority instead of correcting the mistake forthwith, has imposed wholly illegal and arbitrary conditions upon the petitioner. We strongly condemn the manner in which the Development Authority has handled the matter. 9. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent, Development Authority, will within two weeks from today carry out correction in the allotment order or issue fresh allotment order in the name of the petitioner. The respondent, Development Authority, will also issue fresh statement of account in the name of the petitioner whereunder it shall not be entitled to charge any penal interest. Upon issuance of the statement of account, the petitioner shall make the deposits. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Mukesh Kr. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad