This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.7.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the W.P. No. 12093/2011 was accepted with a direction issued to the respondents to receive the pay order alongwith surcharge @ Rs. 10% for the delayed period and hand over possession of the house in question to the petitioner after fulfilling the other procedural formalities, if any.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents submitted an application for the allotment of a house to the Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation. There was some delay in arranging the payment which was due to the foundation from the respondents. On account of in- action of the respondents to receive the payment and further to do the needful, the respondents instituted a W.P. No. 12093/2011 which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court on 19.07.2011. On the said date a reference was made to orders passed in other cases in which in similar circumstances the writ petitions were allowed and the foundation was directed to receive the payment plus surcharge @ Rs. 10% over it for the period during which the delay in the payment of the price to the foundation was committed. One of such order was passed in W.P. No. 25242/2010 on 20.12.2010 which is placed on the record of the instant I.C.A.
3. Learned. Assistant Advocate General has argued that the foundation authorities were not allowed any opportunity to submit the parawise comments and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned Assistant Advocate General further submits that the appellants were not provided any opportunity of hearing.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned Assistant Advocate General. The order dated 19.07.2011 has appeared to have been passed in the presence of learned Assistant Advocate General and of the legal assistant of the foundation. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the impugned order the facts of such a relief having been granted in similar circumstances to other writ petitioners was admitted before the Court and paragraphs 3 and 4 are reproduced below:--- "3. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this petition but has conceded that this Court in similar matters have granted relief to others. Since the petitioners have arranged the principal amount plus fine and in this regard Pay Order amounting to Rs. 1,526,812/-, dated 02.05.2011 has been prepared in favour of the Punjab Government Servants Housings Foundation (PGSHF), which manifests that the petitioners are serious towards their interest and in similar matters, this Court has already granted relief 6 to certain others, which is not denied by the other side.
4. In the view of above, this petition is accepted and the respondents are directed to receive the Pay Order alongwith surcharge @ Rs. 10% for the delayed period after the receipt of copy of this order and hand over possession of the houses, in question, to the petitioners after fulfilling the other procedural formalities, if any."
The earlier order passed in the W.P. No. 25242/2010, dated 20.12.2010 which is annexed with the instant record also reflects that in similar circumstances the writ petition was allowed and para 3 of the order dated 20.12.2010 passed in W.P. No. 25242/2010 is reproduced below:- "3. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition but has conceded that this Court in similar matters have granted relief to others. Since the petitioner has arranged the principal amount plus fine and in this regard pay order amounting to Rs. 58,89,139/- dated 29.11.2010 has been prepared in favour of the PGSHF which shows the petitioner is serious towards his interest and in similar matters, this Court has already granted relief to certain others which is not denied by other side, this petition is accepted and the respondents are directed to receive the pay order alongwith surcharge @ Rs. 10% for the delayed period after the receipt of copy of this order and hand over possession of the house in question to the petitioner after fulfilling the other procedural formalities, if any.: The contentions of the learned Assistant Advocate General that there was any necessity of parawise comments in this matter does not persuade us as in the impugned order no request was made by the learned law officer who appeared on 19.Q7.2011 .To be allowed to submit parawise comments in the matter. The similarity of facts was also admitted before C.LR. the Court by the parties then appearing. The earlier order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 25242/2010, dated 20.12.2010 has not been asserted by the learned Assistant Advocate General to have been further assailed and has attained finality.
5. Keeping in view the above discussion, we are not persuaded to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.07.2011 in W.P. No. 12093/2011. The justice has been done in this matter. The instant ICA is, therefore, dismissed in limine. .