Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 518 (PNJ)

Lal Ji v. UT Administration

2018-02-07

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Through the instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.8.2017 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.2 rejecting his appeal. 2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition may be noticed. The petitioner was working as labourer in Chandigarh and was residing in Jhuggi No. 596/1, Block-K, Labour Colony No.5, Chandigarh since the year 1987 as is clear from the Voter Card dated 25.9.1994 (Annexure P-1). In the year 2006, Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) had launched a scheme, namely, 'The Chandigarh Small Flat Scheme-2006' (in short “the Scheme”) to provide living space, i.e. hygienic, has basic amenities and safe for making Chandigarh jhuggi free. The respondents identified 18 unauthorized habitations for providing accommodation of residential one room flats on monthly license basis under the Scheme. In response thereto, the petitioner moved an application dated 7.10.2010 for obtaining license of a flat under the Scheme. When the petitioner was not allotted any flat, he moved an application dated 13.2.2014 (Annexure P-2) before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Union Territory, Chandigarh. The said application was rejected by the Permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 23.6.2015 (Annexure P-3). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed CWP-272-2016 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 26.4.2017 (Annexure P-4) directed the affected parties/applicants to file an appeal before respondent No.2. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2 vide order dated 24.8.2017 (Annexure P-5) dismissed the said appeal. According to the petitioner, he was resident of jhuggi No.596/1, Block-K, Labour Colony No.5, Chandigarh as is clear from the ration card, Annexure P-6. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The petitioner had applied for the allotment of a flat under the Scheme. It was claimed that the petitioner was residing in the jhuggi since the year 1987. The Estate Office in its reply submitted that Form No. 20732 pertaining to the petitioner was examined by the screening committee and it was found that the petitioner was not enrolled as a voter for the year 2013 and was, therefore, declared ineligible. Even the petitioner was not registered as a voter for the years 2007 and 2008. The Estate Office in its reply submitted that Form No. 20732 pertaining to the petitioner was examined by the screening committee and it was found that the petitioner was not enrolled as a voter for the year 2013 and was, therefore, declared ineligible. Even the petitioner was not registered as a voter for the years 2007 and 2008. Respondent No.2 while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner had noticed that the petitioner had himself admitted that he was neither registered as a voter nor does he had any other proof of residence for the years 2007, 2008 and 2013 as admissible under the Scheme. The relevant findings recorded by respondent No.2 read thus:- “The appellant has admitted that he is neither registered as a voter nor does he have any other proof of residence admissible under the Scheme for the years 2007, 2008 and 2013. As such, he does not fulfill the eligibility criteria under the Scheme and, therefore, this appeal is rejected for want of eligibility.” 5. In view of the above, no error could be shown in the aforesaid findings recorded by respondent No.2. Finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed.