Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1727 (PNJ)

Sher Singh v. Union Territory Of Chandigarh

2011-09-13

M.JEYAPAUL, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2011
JUDGMENT M. Jeyapaul, J.:- Petitioner Sher Singh has filed this writ petition praying to quash the impugned orders dated 14.10.2009, 4.3.2009 and 12.4.2006 passed by respondents No.1 to 3 respectively, as null and void. He has also sought a mandamus to direct the respondents to allow him to deposit the entire amount with interest and release Booth No.27, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh which was allotted to him for 99 years lease. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that the petitioner applied for the allotment of booth in Fruit and Vegetable Market, Sector 22-D, U.T. Chandigarh on lease basis for 99 years. He deposited the requisite fee and the petitioner was allotted booth No.27 in Sector 22-D, U.T. Chandigarh. Due to the change of petitioner’s residence, he could not receive any communication from the office of the respondents. The possession of the booth was not handed over to the petitioner till date, as a result of which the petitioner could not deposit the balance 75% of the premium together with interest thereon at 10% per annum in their equated annual installments and annual ground rent. Respondent No.2 issued show cause notice on 15.6.2006 and cancelled the allotment to the petitioner on 12.4.2006 due to non-payment of dues. He preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 who confirmed the order passed by respondent No.3 and declined to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.3. A revision was preferred by the petitioner before respondent No.1. The revision also was dismissed confirming the orders passed by respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents and on account of which 75% of the premium was not paid as per the terms and conditions of the order of allotment. It is his further submission that the petitioner is prepared to pay the entire amount found due to the respondents with interest. Respondent No.1 without affording opportunity has chosen to dismiss the revision filed by the petitioner, it is further contended. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as he had failed to comply with the terms and conditions found incorporated in the order of allotment issued to the petitioner for about 13 long years. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as he had failed to comply with the terms and conditions found incorporated in the order of allotment issued to the petitioner for about 13 long years. 5. On a careful perusal of the entire records, we find that the petitioner has chosen to produce only the communication of the respondents dated 3.1.1996 informing him of the recommendation made by the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh for allotment of booth constructed by Chandigarh Housing Board to him and the requirement of payment of Rs.30,100/- by 31.1.1996. The petitioner has not produced for our perusal the order of allotment dated 14.8.1996. It is found from the records that the order of allotment issued to the petitioner on 14.8.1996 stipulates that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs.16,700/- being 50% of the cost of structure immediately after the issuance of the allotment order. He shall also deposit Rs.5667/- being 1/3rd of the cost of the land within 30 days from the date of issuance of the order of allotment. The petitioner was also required to deposit the balance 75% of the premium together with the interest thereon at 10% per annum in their equated installments and annual ground rent. 6. It is the admitted position that the petitioner failed to deposit installments and the ground rent within the stipulated time as directed in the allotment order issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had not cared to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment for about 13 long years. 7. The petitioner has come out with three reasons for not complying with the terms and conditions of the order of allotment. There was a financial strain due to failure in business. He was also afflicted with some severe illness. He had also changed his residential address. There is nothing on record to show that he encountered financial problem or that he was afflicted with some severe illness or that he had changed his residential address. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that he had changed his residential address, he being the allottee is bound to inform the respondents about his change of address. The respondents are supposed to follow-up the matter with the petitioner only to the address furnished by the petitioner. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that he had changed his residential address, he being the allottee is bound to inform the respondents about his change of address. The respondents are supposed to follow-up the matter with the petitioner only to the address furnished by the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner woke-up only when the eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was initiated by the Estate Officer. The petitioner who had not cared about the payment of installments annually and the ground rent for about 13 long years is not entitled to sustain the allotment of booth made in his favour. No compunction can be shown to the person who least bothered about the payment of public money for such a long time. Further the reasons assigned by him also were not supported by any documentary proof. 8. On a perusal of the order passed by respondent No.2 in the appeal preferred, it is found that the petitioner appeared only when respondent No.2 was about to rise from the Court. The order of revision passed by respondent No.1 would reflect that neither the petitioner nor his counsel cared to appear before the revisional authority to prosecute the revision also. Therefore, he cannot also complain that he was not given an opportunity by the Revisional Authority. 9. The petitioner, who failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the order of allotment for 13 long years without any rhyme or reason and showed disinterest in the appeal as well as the revisional proceedings initiated by him, is not entitled to any relief as prayed for by him. In our considered view, the respondent-authorities have rightly passed the orders cancelling the allotment. We do not find any merit in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition fails and it stands dismissed. ----------0BSK0----------