IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.11217 of 2010 Date of Decision : 19.7.2010 Chandigarh Housing Board ....Petitioner Versus Shanti Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The grievance as made out by the Chandigarh Administration in this writ petition is that respondent No.1 was not a registered voter in the year 2006 and therefore she did not satisfy the conditions of eligibility laid down for entitlement of such migrant lablourers for the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme-2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') by providing them with residential flats. The petitioner states that even though the Bio-Metric Survey established the existence of Jhuggi belonging to respondent No.1 and also established her presence and occupation of the same, yet she is not entitled to the benefit of the rehabilitation scheme for the simple reason that she was not registered as a voter in the year 2006 which was one of the essentials. He refers to clause 3(g) of the Scheme wherein the definition of recognised resident has been given, which is C.W.P.No.11217 of 2010 -2- reproduced as under :- “3.(g) “Recognized Resident” means a resident of a Notified Colony whose name is both included in the Voter list of 2006 and whose name is also included in the Bio- Metric Survey conducted by the Chandigarh Administration in the month of March, 2006 and is continuously residing in the colony. Provided that in case of the demise of the Recognized Resident, one member of his family, as defined above, who fulfils the conditions of the Recognized Resident will be eligible for being a licensee.” The grievance aforesaid upon appraisal by this Court is found to be totally without any merit. The petitioner was subjected to a Bio-Metric survey, which was conducted by the Chandigarh Administration to establish the existence of Jhuggis, and the existence of the occupants and also the fact that the said occupants are the residents of the said Jhuggis. It is not disputed before this Court that respondent No.1 was indeed registered as a voter in the year 2004 and was also found present when the Bio-Metric Survey was conducted by the Chandigarh Administration in the year 2006 and, therefore, simply because the respondent No.1 was not registered as a voter in the year 2006 cannot dis-entitle her for her claim to the benefit of the Scheme. That apart, the matter was decided in the Lok Adalat which had observed similarly. The Court is further not satisfied with the approach of the petitioner, who has filed the instant petition against the settlement of a dispute under Section 22C(1) of C.W.P.No.11217 of 2010 -3- the Legal Services Authority Act, and the petition seemingly is frivolous in nature. If a person's existence as also the existence of a Jhuggi has been established in a Bio-Metric Survey, the intended purpose of which stood fully satisfied, then merely on account of the fact that a person failed to get himself registered as a voter in the year 2006 cannot deprive such a person of his entitlement. Failure to get himself registered could be a lapse on the part of respondent No.1 as also on the part of the authorities responsible for registering such voters, but the purpose of the Scheme, which is intended to be a beneficial scheme and is also intended to secure a wider benefit to the society, cannot be defeated because of the superficial technicalities which only indicates the subversive mind set of the administration qua the very scheme which has been introduced by them with ostensible purpose of resettling migrant labourers. The petition being frivolous is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- which shall be deposited by the Chandigarh Housing Board with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the High Court. 19.7.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss