Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1011 (PNJ)

Viney Puri v. Chandigarh Administration

2013-08-06

Mahavir S.Chauhan, Satish Kumar Mittal

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Mahavir S. Chauhan , J.:- By way of this writ petition, petitioner prays for quashing of order dated 09.02.2005 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.3, cancelling lease of Shop No.185, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh and ordering imposition of penalty of forfeiture of 10% of premium, ground rent and interest etc.; order dated 15.07.2009 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2, dismissing her appeal and order dated 03.09.2012, (conveyed to the petitioner vide endorsement dated 07.09.2012) (Annexure P-9) passed by the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh dismissing revision petition of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts emerging from the petition are that Chandigarh Administration re-formulated a scheme called “The Allotment of Sites on Lease-Hold Basis to Auto Spare Parts Dealers and Auto Repair Mechanics in Chandigarh, Scheme 1999” (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1999 Scheme’) as notified on 17.02.1999 for rehabilitation of auto spare part dealers and auto repair mechanics, who were carrying on their business of sale of auto spare parts and auto repair work in the premises/ sites/ streets not meant for such use, thereby causing unhealthy environment, traffic hazard and public nuisance in the city. Petitioner’s husband, late Shri C.B.Puri, was running such a business under the name and style of ‘M/s Puri Auto Seat Industries’ in a rented premises, i.e., SCO No.126, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh. Posthumous petitioner’s husband in 1991, his business and tenancy were succeeded to by the petitioner, being his widow, and her three minor sons. Petitioner continued the aforesaid business in the above stated rented premises and, vide letter of allotment dated 27.11.2001 (Annexure P-2), was allotted shop No.185, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh on lease hold basis under the 1999 Scheme. However, petitioner did not shift to the newly allotted premises in terms of Clause 17 of the letter of allotment after allotment of the new shop in her favour. 3. As such a notice dated 03.09.2002 was served upon the petitioner to show cause why lease of the allotted shop No.185, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh, be not cancelled on account of her failure to vacate the premises which was under her occupation before allotment of the new shop. Reply filed by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory. 3. As such a notice dated 03.09.2002 was served upon the petitioner to show cause why lease of the allotted shop No.185, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh, be not cancelled on account of her failure to vacate the premises which was under her occupation before allotment of the new shop. Reply filed by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory. Vide order dated 09.02.2005 (Annexure P-4), respondent No.3 cancelled the lease of Shop No.185, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh, and also ordered forfeiture of 10% of the premium, ground rent and interest and other dues to be calculated as per Rule 20 the Chandigarh Lease-hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (for short ‘the 1973 Rules’). 4. Petitioner preferred an appeal against order dated 09.02.2005 (Annexure P-4) but it was dismissed by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 15.07.2009 (Annexure P-8). Revision Petition brought by the petitioner also came to be dismissed by the revisional authority, vide order dated 03.09.2012 (Annexure P-9). 5. As aforesaid, to challenge these three orders, petitioner has invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, by way of the instant writ petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the averments made in the writ petition very carefully. 7. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that she has already shifted to the newly allotted shop and her sons are carrying on business of manufacture of car seat covers independently under the name and style of ‘Purisons’ in the old premies, i.e., Shop No.128, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh, in their own right. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no violation of terms and conditions of allotment and, as such, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 8. As stated at the very outset, ‘the 1999 Scheme’ was aimed at rehabilitation of those auto spare part dealers and auto repair mechanics who were carrying on their business at places not meant for such use and to free those places from such misuse. Clause 13 of the 1999 Scheme, which is relevant for the disposal of the instant writ petition, is to the following effect:- “13. Clause 13 of the 1999 Scheme, which is relevant for the disposal of the instant writ petition, is to the following effect:- “13. Time by which present site of business is to be vacated:- The auto repair mechanics and dealers in auto spare parts carrying on business at the present sites/shops which are not meant for the purpose shall vacate the misue of the site/shop before taking over the possession of the new site and shift to the new sites immediately on issue of allotment letters.” 9. The letter of allotment dated 27.11.2001 (Annexure P-2) also has a similar clause, i.e., Clause No.17, which reads as under:- “17. The lessee will be required to shift to the new Shop/Booth immediately on the issue of the Allotment Letter. If the allottee does not shift to the new Shop/Booth by stopping the earlier misuse, his allotment will be cancelled.” 10. It is so argued on behalf of the petitioner and is so recorded in her reply (Annexure P-3), to the show cause notice dated 03.09.2002, that the petitioner has shifted the business being run under the name and style of ‘Puri Auto Seat Industries’ to the newly allotted premises but her three sons, who have attained majority, are continuing their business in the old premises, i.e. SCO No.126, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh, and are engaged in the business of manufacture of car seat covers under the name and style of ‘Purisons’. 11. Respondent No.3 in order dated 09.02.2005 (Annexure P-4), the appellate authority in order dated 15.07.2009 (Annexure P-8) and the revisional authority in order dated 03.09.2012 (Annexure P-9), have recorded a definite finding that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment insofar as she has not vacated the misuse of the old premises and is still doing business of car accessories, manufacture of seat cover etc. therein. Not only this, the appellate authority in its order dated 15.07.2009 (Annexure P-8) has also recorded that during the course of hearing, counsel for the Estate Officer had shown an affidavit duly sworn by the petitioner at the time of allotment of shop to her in Sector 48-C, Chandigarh, thereby undertaking to vacate the old site, i.e., SCO No.126, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh, and to shift to the new site immediately on allotment of the new site. 12. 12. In spite of an unambiguous stipulation in the 1999 Scheme (Annexure P-1), letter of allotment dated 27.11.2001 (Annexure P-2) and undertaking given by the petitioner in her affidavit referred to above, the misuse of the old premises has not been stopped and, in stead, the petitioner has devised a very clever move to defeat the object of ‘the 1999 Scheme’ by herself shifting to the new site and making her sons to continue the business of manufacture of car seat covers etc. in the old premises under a changed name. This endeavour of the petitioner is evidently deceitful and cannot be appreciated. If the petitioner is allowed to enjoy the newly allotted premises, i.e. Shop No.185, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh, and at the same time to continue the business of manufacture of auto seat covers etc. in the old premises, then not only the purpose of ‘the 1999 Scheme’ would be frustrated but it would also amount to giving premium to the petitioner for her dishonest move. 13. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahinsa” (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their lives. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell the truth in courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take refuge under falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. Nowadays, a new creed of litigants of the ilk of the petitioner has cropped up who do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with sullied hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. That being so, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders under the writ jurisdiction. 14. The instant writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------