Civil Writ Petition No. 6615 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 6615 of 2008 Date of Decision: 18.11.2009 Ashok Kumar and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.3. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioners have approached this Court by filing writ petition with a prayer that order dated 7.2.2008 (Annexure P17) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, whereby the proposal submitted by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rohtak, was rejected, be quashed. Petitioners have pleaded that they were allotted shops at Rohtak-Bhiwani Road, Rohtak, in an open auction in the year 2000 by Municipal Council, Rohtak. They had deposited requisite security to the satisfaction of Municipal Council, Rohtak. Later Government proposed to widen the road from Rohtak to Bhiwani and the shops in possession of the petitioners were demolished. To rehabilitate the petitioners, Civil Writ Petition No. 6615 of 2008 2 Municipal Council, Rohtak, allotted alternative shops constructed inside the Civil Hospital boundary. On the asking of the Municipal Council, petitioners had deposited the amount also with the Municipal Council. The recommendations, in the order passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Councl, Rohtak, were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak vide impugned order (Annexure P17). This Court had issued notice. In pursuance whereof, Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, has caused appearance for Municipal Council, Rohtak and has referred to the written statement filed by Municipal Council. In para 2 of the written statement, it has been averred as under:- “2. That in reply to the contents of Para No.2 of the Writ Petition it is submitted that the petitioners were tenants of the shops situated on Rohtak- Bhiwani Road. It is admitted that on account of widening of Rohtak-Bhiwani Road, on 10.07.2006, the answering respondent issued notices to the petitioners. It is also admitted that the case for approval has been sent to the higher authorities vide letter dated 21.9.2007. It is also admitted that CWP 16888 of 2007 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court and during the pendency of the Writ Petition vide order dated 7.2.2008, the proposal sent by Respondent No.3 was rejected by respondent No.2”. Civil Writ Petition No. 6615 of 2008 3 Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State of Haryana, has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner was well within his rights to reject the proposal submitted by the Executive Officer as reasons given in the order (Annexure P17) are unassailable and the Deputy Commissioner had rightly concluded that no right vest in the petitioners to ask for the allotment. She has further submitted that order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak (Annexure P17) was later ratified by the Director, Local Bodies, Government of Haryana. At this juncture, this Court need not examine the merits of order (Annexure P17). Counsel for the petitioners has stated that while passing impugned order (Annexure P17) petitioners were not associated by the Deputy Commissioner and they were given no opportunity to adduce evidence to say that the reasons stated in the order (Annexure P17) are contrary to the facts. Counsel has further submitted that principles of natural justice demand that an opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted to them. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure P17), this Court is of the view that documents relied by the petitioners along with the present petition ought to have been considered by the Deputy Commissioner and they should have been granted an opportunity of hearing by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, impugned order (Annexure P17) is set aside with a rider that the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and shall pass order after giving due opportunity to the petitioners. Civil Writ Petition No. 6615 of 2008 4 With the observations made above, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 18, 2009 “DK”