Ishwar Dev Bhandari vs. Hp Housing And Urban Development Authority

Held

The Court held that the respondent-authority had not acted reasonably in dealing with the petitioner and had made efforts to defeat the petitioner's rightful claim, despite favorable findings from two consumer courts. The Court found that the demand notices for watch and ward charges were arbitrary and illegal. The reasoning was based on the principle that actions of a State or its instrumentality must be informed by reason and adhere to the rule of law, as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court cited precedents emphasizing fairness, reasonableness, and the avoidance of arbitrariness in governmental actions, especially in monopoly or semi-monopoly dealings. The ratio decidendi is that any action by a public authority that is arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory, particularly when it attempts to defeat a claimant's rights despite prior judicial pronouncements, is liable to be struck down under Article 14. The Court quashed and set aside the demand notices and directed HIMUDA to hand over possession of the plot to the petitioner forthwith.

Facts

The petitioner, Sh. Ishwar Dev Bhandari, filed a writ petition challenging demand notices dated 10.02.2020 and 28.02.2023 issued by the respondent, Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority (HIMUDA). These notices demanded Rs. 14,78,851/- and Rs. 8,80,000/- respectively, on account of watch and ward charges. The petitioner had applied for a plot in 2004-05, paid earnest money and subsequent installments as per the payment schedule. In 2011, HIMUDA conveyed the final cost and demanded an additional Rs. 3,78,364/-. The petitioner deposited this amount after a District Consumer Forum directed HIMUDA to hand over possession. HIMUDA appealed, and the State Commission upheld the possession handover but set aside penal interest. Despite this, HIMUDA failed to deliver possession and subsequently issued the impugned demand notices for watch and ward charges.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notices dated 10.02.2020 and 28.02.2023, demanding watch and ward charges, are arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable, particularly in light of previous consumer court orders directing the handover of possession? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that HIMUDA's actions were arbitrary and illegal, especially since consumer forums had already directed the handover of possession after the petitioner paid the differential amount. The issuance of demand notices for watch and ward charges after such a long delay and without handing over possession was unjust. The petitioner relied on the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness in State actions, citing judgments like Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Limited v. Govindan Raghavan and Ors, Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal, and Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation. Respondent's arguments: The judgment records that the respondent's reply admitted the facts presented by the petitioner, but no specific arguments against the petitioner's claims regarding the watch and ward charges were detailed in the provided text.