IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2679 of 2009 Date of decision: March 10, 2009. Manjit Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Chandigarh Administration and ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri S.K. Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 24.3.2003, 24.8.2004, 5.3.2007 and 9.9.2008 (Annexures P-3 P-5 and P-8) whereby booth No. 21, Sector 44 C&D, Chandigarh allotted to him has been resumed and the appeal and the revision preferred against the same have also been dismissed. The above stated booth was allotted to the petitioner, on a premium of Rs.15,10,000/-, being the highest bidder in an open auction. The allotment letter dated 2.2.1999 (Annexure P-1) expressly stipulated that after payment of 25% of the premium amount, the balance 75% was to be paid within 30 days of the date of auction without any interest or in three equal installments along with interest @ 10% per annum. The installments were liable to be deposited on 10.1.2000, 10.1.2001 and 10.1.2002. It is the conceded position that the petitioner failed to deposit all the three installments despite repeated notices issued to him, including dated 25.10.2000, 15.6.2001 and 8.4.2002. In fact, the petitioner did not even respond to these notices to explain the hardship, if any, or the circumstances which really prevented him from depositing the installments. The Estate Officer, UT Chandigarh, therefore, passed the order dated 24.3.2003 (Annexure P-3) cancelling the lease-hold rights of the petitioner and initiating further proceedings for his eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. It appears from the record that soon after allotment, the petitioner rented out the booth as his tenant also joined him as co-appellant in the appeal preferred against the order of resumption. The appellate order dated 24.8.2004 (Annexure P-4) reveals that notwithstanding the persistent default made by the petitioner in the past, the appellate authority gave him two more opportunities to deposit the due installments along with interest and penalty vide interim orders dated 18.5.2004 and 13.7.2004. The petitioner though is stated to have deposited some amount but the fact remains that the due payments were not deposited and resultantly the appellate authority dismissed his appeal. Still aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision petition which was apparently filed after a delay of about three years, i.e., in the year 2007 only. The revisional authority still granted one more opportunity to the petitioner to clear the entire outstanding dues as per his own undertaking given before the revisional authority. Consequently, the resumption order was set aside subject to the condition that, “the owner will clear entire outstanding dues within two weeks, failing which the order of the Estate Officer shall become operative”. The petitioner again failed to comply with that order also. He then moved an application before the revisional authority for 'modification' of its order dated 5.3.2007 and to grant more time to deposit the outstanding arrears. That application having been dismissed by the revisional authority, that he has approached this court. As the facts would speak for themselves, the petitioner is a habitual and incorrigible defaulter who has shown scant respect for the undue compassion shown by one or the other Authority in his favour. The petitioner was not sincere or serious to retain the allotment. Not only that he failed to honour the orders passed on his own undertakings, he also failed to challenge the appellate authority's orders within a reasonable period. Interestingly, the petitioner did not deposit the due installments even when he started earning the rental immediate after allotment of the booth. In these circumstances, no case of interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. March 10, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge