JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - We have a bunch of 8 cases. The petitioners in these cases complain that their claim for allotment of the built-up booths has been wrongly rejected. They pray that the orders passed by the Assistant Estate Officer (exercising the powers of Estate Officer) and the Appellate Authority, copies of which have produced as Annexures P-3 and P-5 respectively, be quashed. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the facts in CWP No. 6343 of 2000. These may be briefly noticed. 2. On March 15, 1991, the petitioner submitted an application for registration for the allotment of a booth. He deposited the fee of Rs. 100/-. On March 25, 1991 the petitioner deposited the additional amount of Rs. 3,000/-. The claims of all the persons, who had registered licences were screened by a Committee. Thereafter the matter was placed before the competent authority for consideration. Vide order dated December 28, 1998 it was held that the petitioner was not eligible for the allotment of a booth. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Chief Administrator vide his order dated February 29, 2000. A copy of this order is at Annexure P-5. By this order, it was held by the Authority that the appeal was not maintainable under the Rules. Aggrieved by the two orders, copies of which are annexed as Annexures P-3 and P-5, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He prays that both the orders be quashed. 3. The claim of the petitioner has been controverted. A written statement has been filed. It has been inter alia stated that the claims of all eligible persons were considered by a Screening Committee. Thereafter the matter was placed before the competent authority for consideration and decision. It was found that "the petitioner did not hold a valid handcraft licence......". Thus he was not eligible. Resultantly, his request for allotment of a booth was declined. On these premises, the respondents pray that all the writ petitions should be dismissed. 4. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 5. Mr. P.N. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that they held valid licences on March 7, 1991 when the Administration had published the Rules. Thus they were eligible. 6. On these premises, the respondents pray that all the writ petitions should be dismissed. 4. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 5. Mr. P.N. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that they held valid licences on March 7, 1991 when the Administration had published the Rules. Thus they were eligible. 6. The Administration had published the Rules called "Allotment/Transfer of Built up Booths in any Sector on Lease/Hire Purchase basis in Chandigarh Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). These rules were published on March 7, 1991. Rule 5 lay down the conditions of eligibility. The relevant portion of the rule reads as under : "5. Eligibility. - The competent authority may allot a built up booth in the market in any Sector to a person if : (a) he holds a valid hand cart licence as well as a driving licence and owns a hand cart on the basis of issue of the Notification or the date as may be prescribed for the purpose." 7. A perusal of the above rule shows that a person is eligible for allotment of a booth if he holds "a valid hand cart licence....... on the date of issue of the Notification or the date as prescribed for the purpose". Thus, the requirement is that the persons, who were holding valid licences on March 7, 1991, were entitled to be considered for the allotment of a booth. In the order passed by the Authority, there is no finding that the petitioners did not hold a valid licence on March 7, 1991. It has been merely observed that the authority did not find "any merit and reason to differ with the findings already given by the Screening Committee constituted for the said purpose". The petitioner was not even informed about the findings which have been given by the Screening Committee. However, a reference of the findings has been made in para 2 of the preliminary objections raised in the written statement. Even in the extract of the report which has been reproduced, it has not been suggested that the petitioners did not have valid licences on March 7, 1991. 8. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners, has pointed out that provisional identity cards had been issued. Licence numbers had been duly recorded. This was prima facie evidence of the fact that they were eligible. 8. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners, has pointed out that provisional identity cards had been issued. Licence numbers had been duly recorded. This was prima facie evidence of the fact that they were eligible. Still further he has also submitted that the Estate Officer had refused to accept the renewal fees despite requests. The submission made by the counsel may or may not be right. At the moment, we are only concerned with the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Estate Officer. Since no finding with regard to eligibility has been recorded, we are unable to sustain the impugned orders. 9. Consequently, all the petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remitted to the competent authority viz. the Estate Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with the Rules. Needful shall be done within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs. Petition accepted.