JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - Ishwar Dass was given a hand-cart licence. He was allotted site No. 20 in the Rehri Market of Sector 15, Chandigarh. He sublet the Rehri to the petitioner in the year 1986. This matter came to the notice of the Licensing Officer. He gave a notice to Ishwar Dass as well as the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted his reply along with Ishwar Dass. They were heard. Vide order dated September 2, 1993 the Licensing Officer found that "Shri Ishwar Dass has violated the terms and conditions of bye-laws." It was noticed that in Clause 17(vi) of the Bye-laws it has been specifically provided that "the licensee shall not allow the use of hand-cart allotted to him by a person other that himself in any manner whatsoever." Since Ishwar Dass has sublet, he had acted in violation of the Bye-laws. Therefore, his Licence No. 1899 was cancelled. This order has, admittedly, attained finality. 2. Despite the cancellation of the licence, the petitioner continued to run the Rehri at site No. 20. Consequently, the proceedings for his eviction were initiated under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Vide order dated June 28, 2000, the Estate Officer held that the petitioner "is unauthorised occupant of site No. 20, Rehri Stand, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh......." He was ordered to vacate the premises within 15 days. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Chandigarh. This appeal was heard and dismissed by the District Judge vide order dated August 9, 2000. Hence this petition. 3. The petitioner prays that the orders passed by the Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P10 and P12, be quashed, and a writ of mandamus be issued, directing respondent No. 1 to allot a booth to the petitioner. 4. We have heard Mr. V.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner. A two- fold submission has been made. Firstly, it has been contended that the Estate Officer has passed the impugned order without granting an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Secondly, it has been submitted that booths are available. Various other persons, who were sub-lessees, have been allotted booths. Thus, even the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of a built-up booth. Firstly, it has been contended that the Estate Officer has passed the impugned order without granting an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Secondly, it has been submitted that booths are available. Various other persons, who were sub-lessees, have been allotted booths. Thus, even the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of a built-up booth. On this basis it is prayed that the claim, as made in the writ petition, be allowed. 5. A copy of the order passed by the Estate Officer has been produced as Annexure P10 with the writ petition. A perusal of this order as also the Zimni order recorded by the Authority on June 28, 2000, shows that the petitioners counsel was not present on that date. It is on this basis that Mr. Jain has contended that the petitioner was denied an adequate opportunity, inasmuch as the case had not been adjourned to allow his counsel to appear and argue. However, it is not disputed that prior to this date various opportunities had been given. Still further, even after recording Zimni order on June 28, 2000, the Authority had taken the written arguments on record. These written arguments have been duly considered. When the arguments have been duly considered, the grievance as now sought to be made is wholly fallacious. It cannot be sustained. It has not even been suggested that the submissions, as made in the written arguments, have not been considered by the Authority. That being so, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing. 6. It has been further contended that the persons, who were similarly placed, have been allotted built-up booths. It has been pointed out that the booths are actually available and various other persons have been allotted booths by the Administration. 7. It is not disputed that only those persons, who had valid licences, have been granted booths. In the present case, it is the admitted position that the licence of Ishwar Dass was duly cancelled vide order dated September 2, 1993. It was held that he had acted in violation of the bye-laws in permitting the petitioner to run the Rehri. This being the position, the petitioner cannot claim that he was similarly placed as others who had been allotted booths. The licensees had a right to be considered and given booths. It was held that he had acted in violation of the bye-laws in permitting the petitioner to run the Rehri. This being the position, the petitioner cannot claim that he was similarly placed as others who had been allotted booths. The licensees had a right to be considered and given booths. So far as the petitioner is concerned, neither he nor Ishwar Dass, who had sublet the Rehri to him, had a licence. Thus, they had no right to claim the allotment of a booth. The grievance that the action is discriminatory and arbitrary, is wholly unfounded. It cannot be sustained. 8. No other point has been raised. 9. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is, consequently, dismissed, in limine. 10. At this stage Mr. Jain has made a prayer that the petitioner may be given a reasonable time to make alternative arrangement to earn his livelihood. 11. We grant him three months time. In case the petitioner files a written undertaking before the Estate Officer within one week that he would vacate the site on or before November 30, 2000, the impugned order shall not be implemented till then. Petition dismissed.