BADRI TIWARI Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH
LAWS(P&H)-2016-10-110
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on October 25,2016

BADRI TIWARI Appellant
VERSUS
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. - (1.)Pursuant to the "Allotment/Transfer of Built-up Booths in any Sector on Lease/Hire Purchase Basis in Chandigarh Rules, 1991" (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), a draw of lots was held on 23.03.2006 for allotment of built up platforms/booths in Sector 26 (Grain Market), Chandigarh, to the registered hand-cart/hawker licence holders. The petitioner was successful in the said draw. Consequently, a letter of intent dated 30.05.2006 (Annexure P-1) was issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner, intending to allot him Platform/Booth No. 38 in Sector 26 (Grain market), Chandigarh. Accordingly, vide allotment letter dated 28.9.2006 (Annexure P-2), the aforesaid booth was allotted to the petitioner on lease hold basis, on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. However, vide order dated 04.02.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.3, lease of the said built up booth in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, due to non-execution of the lease deed by him. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of appeal (Annexure P-5) before respondent No.2, but he remained unsuccessful as his appeal was dismissed vide order dated 25.4.2016 (Annexure P-6). Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed revision petition (Annexure P-7), which too resulted into dismissal by respondent No.1 vide order dated 27.09.2016 (Annexure P-8).
(2.)Hence, by way of present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 04.02.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.3 cancelling allotment of the booth in question in his favour; as well as the orders dated 25.04.2016 and 27.09.2016 (Annexures P-6 and P-8) passed by respondents No.2 and 1, dismissing his appeal and revision, respectively. The impugned orders have been challenged on the following grounds :-
(i) The impugned orders have been passed by the authorities below without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, which are wholly illegal and arbitrary being passed against the provisions of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, and Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, and are against the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience;

(ii) Respondent No.3 did not consider the fact that the petitioner had already submitted lease deed, duly executed by him, for acceptance, before receiving the impugned order dated 04.02.2015. No opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner by respondent No.3 before cancellation of his lease deed on account of non-execution of the lease deed.

(iii) The petitioner also deposited Banker Cheque dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure P-9) for Rs.2,50,000.00, with respondent No.2, showing his bona fide. Thus, lease in favour of the petitioner should not have been cancelled by respondent No.3 and his appeal was liable to be accepted by respondent No.2;

(iv) Petitioner is a very poor person and due to his poor health, he could not run his business properly and was, therefore, unable to pay dues timely.

(3.)After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any merit in the instant writ petition.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.