IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9938 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 20, 2011. Smt.Santosh .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Kundu, Additional AG, Haryana. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, whereby allotment of Government H.No.301/1 Revenue Colony, Sector-14, Rohtak, in his favour has been cancelled. The husband of the petitioner late Chhattar Singh was an employee in the Haryana Police as Head Constable when he unfortunately expired in the year 1992 while in service. Later on, the petitioner has been appointed as a Peon under the Ex-gratia Scheme in the office of the Tehsildar (Sales), Rohtak in the year 1996. The aforesaid Government quarter was allotted to her where she is staying alongwith her children. C.W.P.No .9938 of 2010 2 It appears that a complaint dated nil (Annexure R-1) was received by the Deputy Commissioner Rohtak, alleging therein that son of the petitioner was indulging in “anti-social activities in the Colony and his mother is sheltering him”. Without enquiring into the allegations though after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner that the impugned order dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure P-4) cancelling the allotment of the quarter has been passed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Neither the alleged 'anti-social activities' of the petitioner's son are mentioned in the subject complaint nor the same have been enquired into by the respondents. No rule/provision has been referred to in terms whereof the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak could cancel the allotment of a Government quarter merely on receipt of such like complaints. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure P-4) is hereby quashed. Dasti. January 20, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE