CWP No. 18007 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18007 of 2009 Date of decision September 29, 2011 Baldev Singh and another ....... Petitioners Versus Union Territory, UT, Chandigarh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr.Amar Vivek , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.P. Setia, Advocate for Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel, Chandigarh Administration. Mr. K. K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioner challenges the order in Annexure P- 20 issued by the Managing Director of Chandigarh Child and Women Development Corporation Ltd.,arrayed as second respondent cancelling the accommodation made to the petitioners in the year 2002 at the Senior Citizen's Home. The basis for cancellation is that the petitioners have defaced the government building by placing a balcony without obtaining any written permission and that the petitioners had been away from the home for more than 60 days without seeking permission from the Managing Director justifying their decision. There is no dispute that there had been procedural compliance by issuance of show cause notice before CWP No. 18007 of 2009 2 the action was taken. 2. The only issue on the basis of which the case requires consideration is whether there have been isolations of the conditions under which the allotment had been made to the petitioners to justify the impugned order. 3. Counsel for the petitioner refers me to clause (e) General conditions obtaining under the Prospectus and rules and regulations of the Senior Citizen's Home. 1. The right of admission to the Home shall be reserved by the Corporation. Admission shall be allowed by interview by a Board appointed by the Chairperson of Management Committee, Senior Citizen's Home, Sector 43, Chandigarh (Managing Director, Chandigarh Child & Women Dev., Corporation). 2. The residents will observe the rules and regulations of the Home. 3. The applicant may be called for interview at his/her own expenses and can be asked to produce additional documents, if the Board considers it necessary. The Committee reserves the right of admission and its decision shall be final. Applicants will be informed of their selection in writing and if they fail to occupy the accommodation within the specified time, then it will be treated as cancelled automatically. 4. The applicants are not allowed to change their rooms unless prior written permission from Resident Manager is obtained. Residents are also not permitted to keep guests in their rooms. 5. The residents are not permitted, in their own interest, to move on the roads and in Bazar on account of danger of accidents from fast moving traffic. In the event of any mishap, the risk and responsibility would lie with residents concerned. 6. List of legal heirs and friends and relatives CWP No. 18007 of 2009 3 with their addresses will have to be supplied at the time of admission to whom residents want to communicate and who can be informed in the event of any emergency. 7. In the event of residents visiting their relatives and friends, written information may be left with the management, giving contact address and phone number. They should also report on return to the Resident Manager. In every such case, they will leave the room key with the Resident Manager. The Home Management will in no way be responsible for their belongings in the Home during their absence from the Home or in any other case. 8. The Management Committee through its Chairperson will have the powers to remove any residents for failure to observe the rules or on any other ground. 9. Each resident will be issued an identity card. 10. The residents are expected to keep cleanliness.” 4. According to him, the objective of setting up Senior Citizen's Home was to provide requisite facilities to the well off senior citizens who were living alone and were in need of care and who had capacity to pay for the services availed of to give them homely atmosphere. The first petitioner is 83 years and second is 72 years and there is no denial of the fact that the petitioners have their own property interest. Whenever they have remained away they have paid the requisite charges as prescribed and there was no regulation prevailing at that time that the absence from the place itself would result in breach of rules and give room for cancellation of the allotment. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that absence CWP No. 18007 of 2009 4 for more than 60 days came as a condition subsequently. The relevant clause (e) as stands amended through general condition which reads as follows:- “Any resident leaving the Home for less than one month shall seek the permission from Resident Manager and for one month or above upto 60 days from the Managing Director justifying the absence. Any resident remains away from the Home beyond a period of 60 days in that case his admission is liable to be cancelled without any intimation and the resident shall have to vacate the room within 15 days failing which the Senior Citizens Home authorities shall have full right to break open the lock by the committee consisting of Resident Manager, Project Officer and two residents, Sr. Citizens. The belongings of the residents shall be shifted in store after preparing inventory.” 6. This condition makes possible the administration to revoke the allotment if a person stays away for more than 60 days. The counsel for the petitioner, points out that these regulations came into effect only from the year 2009 and the petitioner will be bound by these regulations and any action could be taken if the conditions are breached. Counsel for the respondents states that these amended regulations were effective from 27.3.2008 itself. Although the printed book produced before me by the counsel at the time of arguments makes reference to the rules as effective from the year 2008 itself, I cannot give credence to the same in view of the fact that to the specific averments made by the petitioner that new regulations came into effect in the year 2009, there has been no denial at all. At least, it cannot be seen that any of the inhabitants at the old home were made aware of the said change of regulations before the year 2009. 7. We are not examining a situation of a misuse by an undeserving person who owns property and who is well off and therefore he should make way for some other deserving person in queue CWP No. 18007 of 2009 5 who has not been accommodated I have already extracted the objective for establishing this Senior Citizen's Home that does not cast a relative affluent status to be a disqualification. The only issue would be whether the petitioner could be evicted for an alleged violation for the period when the rules did not contain such a stipulation. Certainly that could not be. Learned counsel for the State gives a detail of the number of days when they were remaining absent for the year 2009,2010 and 2011. They will give independent cause of action if there is any violation had taken place. 8. As regards the fact that some alterations in the balcony and at the kitchen and that they are availing of services of some person who manages the kitchen, I cannot see them circumstances which have caused any serious prejudice to the Administration. The construction could not have come in a day unless there has been some form of acquiescence for the same. If they are in any prejudicial to the uniformity of the building, the respondent shall be at liberty to secure the removal of any addition which the petitioner has made for his own convenience at the cost of the petitioners, provided further, they are not mere conveniences for old people but involve serious building violation. 9. The impugned order of cancellation is quashed reserving any independent action that may become possible for any violation subsequent to the institution of the petition. 10. The writ petition is allowed subject to the liberty to the respondents as aforesaid. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 29, 2011 archana