This writ petition is filed to call for the records in connection with the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in C2/PP/62/97, dated 28.11.2001, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to execute the sale deed in respect of Plot No.477 HIG at PP Scheme- SD III belonging to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner applied for allotment of Perumalpattu Scheme vide application No.0062, dated 17.8.1998. Petitioner was allotted HIG Plot No.477, third avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai.102. The cost was fixed as Rs.2,90,541/-. The extent of the plot is 308 sq.mtrs.
3. The facts as could be culled out from the counter affidavit is as follows:-
The allotment order was issued on 17.8.1998. It is stated that the allottee paid a sum of Rs.1,76,757/- vide receipt No.51422, dated 17.8.1998 and further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on the same day in receipt No. 51484 and the balance amount of Rs.13,784/- was paid on 18.8.1998 vide receipt No. 51509. The respondents state that the possession of the land was handed over to the allottee on 17.8.1998 and no due certificate was issued on 18.8.1998, which reads as follows:-
" This is to certify that Tmt. Janaki Sundararaman has been allotted HIG Plot No. 477 at Perumalpattu Scheme. The cost of the Plot is fixed as Rs.2,90,541/-. She has paid full cost of the Plot. The possession of the plot has also been handed over to her on 17.8.1998. The title of the plot will be transferred to the allottee on completion of Three years and on construction of a House whichever is later.
The land is free from encumbrance from the date of taken over by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board."
3. No objection was given on 14.8.2000 so as to enable the petitioner to get the approval of the CMDA for construction of the house in the plot allotted. On 30.10.2000 no objection certificate for electricity supply was granted. Surprisingly, on 28.11.2001, the Manager, Marketing and Services of the respondent department issued the following proceedings.
" It is informed that the cost of Plot No. 477 HIG at Perumalpattu is since been revised based on the pricing approved with effect from 4/96.
Hence, your are requested to pay the carrying charges for the plot No. 477 HIG at Perumalpattu for Rs.69,200/- as on 12/2001 failing which further interest will accrue. "
4. The petitioner sent a reply dated 18.12.2001 rejecting the said demand. The respondents on receipt of the above reply kept quiet for more than four years. Suddenly in proceedings dated 26.10.2005 respondents demanded a sum of Rs.1,12,233/-. In response to the letter dated 18.12.2001 with a plea for execution of sale deed, the petitioner was slapped with the notice informing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,12,233/- towards the differential cost as on 31.10.2005 including the maintenance charges. On such payment, it is stated the sale deed will be executed. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed explaining as to how the amount has been arrived at in the first proceedings dated 28.11.2001 which is challenged in this writ petition and the consequential proceedings dated 26.10.2005 determining the total amount of Rs.1,12,223/-. The details of the calculation is contained in paragraphs 6,7,8 and 9 of the counter affidavit, are as under:-
" (6) I state that as per the pricing approval, the cost of plot was fixed as Rs.2,31,000/- as on 04/1996. At the time of allotment on 08/1008 without capitalization, the cost of the plot was informed as Rs.2,90,541/- whereas the actual cost as on 17.08.1998 is Rs.3,45,767/-. The difference of Rs.55,226/- is to be collected from the Petitioner as on 08/1998 and after adding interest to this amount it works out to Rs.1,12,233/- as on 10/2005 including Rs.1500/- towards maintenance charge. Further, interest will also accrue till the date of payment.
(7). As the Board had not intimated the capitalized cost to the allottee, the Audit has raised this as objection. Hence, the allottee of HIG Plot No. 477 at Perumalpattu scheme has been requested to pay the carrying charges of Rs.69,200/- as on 12/2001 vide letter No. C2/PP/62/97, dated 28.11.2001. But the allottee has not come forward to pay the same.
(8). With regard to the averments in Para-2, I state that the Regular Allotment Order was issued on 17.8.1998. The allottee has paid only the initial costs of the plot without capitalization. The possession of the Plot was handed over to her on 17.8.98 on the same day. But the actual cost of the plot as on 17.8.98 is Rs.3,45,767/-. Therefore, there is difference of Rs.55,226/- as on 8/98 and adding interest to this amount it works out to Rs.1,12,233/- as on 10/05 including Rs.1,500/- towards maintenance charges. Further, interest will also accrue till the date of payment.
(9). with regard to the averments in para-3, it is true that the No due Certificate was issued on 18.8.1998, but on that date, the cost was intimated without capitalization which was a clerical error. It is only a calculation mistake and therefore, on that date a sum of Rs.55,226/- was due from her. She has to pay this amount with interest charges."
6. The impugned proceedings does not state on what basis carrying charges have been imposed. In the consequential letter dated 26.10.2005, the stand of the department is that the amount is claimed towards differential costs. The basis for such working is not given in the said impugned letter. The department has however given the details of the working in the counter affidavit, which has already been extracted above. On the face of it, the impugned proceedings contains no reason and the details with regard to the calculation given in the counter affidavit cannot be sustained. In any event, the department has attempted to explain the impugned proceedings in the counter affidavit, which cannot be countenanced by this Court in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. - The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851 and S.N.Mukherjee v. - Union of India (1990)4 SCC 594. In para 8 of the decision in AIR 1978 SC 851 reads as follows:-
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J., in Gordhandas Bhani (AIR 1952 SC 16)(at p.18):
"Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself".
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older."
Para 36 in (1990)4 SCC 594 reads thus:-
"36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision on judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage."
7. Mr. I Sathish, learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents had no other go except to raise the demand in view of the audit objection. This Court is unable to accept the plea as it is not based on any document or the nature of the agreement between the parties. No details are given in the impugned proceedings so as to sustain such demand.
8. The impugned proceedings, therefore, bereft of reasons issued after a long period of time without any legal basis cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to seek the execution of the sale deed subject to the compliance of any other bonafide requirement as per law except the amount, which has been set aside by this order. The respondents are directed to execute the sale deed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
ra To
1. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, rep. By its Chairman, Nandanam, Chennai.35.
2. Allottee Service Manager, Special Division-III, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Anna Nagar, Chennai.40.
3. The Manager, Marketing and Service, Special Division III, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Anna Nagar, Chennaid.40.
4. The Asst. Revenue Officer, K.K. Nagar Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83