IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15727 of 2009 Date of decision: 13th October, 2009 Chandigarh Housing Board … Petitioner Versus Permanent Lok Adalat and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Indresh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition has been filed by Chandigarh Housing Board against the decision of Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), U.T. Chandigarh. Smt. Girija S. Nayyar had applied, in pursuance of an advertisement, for allotment of one bedroom flat in a four storey building in Sector 49, Chandigarh. Petitioner had advertised 160 one bed room four storeyed flats in Sector 49, Chandigarh, out of which 142 flats were to be allotted to general public, 8 for to the Oustees under “The Chandigarh Allotment of Dwelling Units to the oustees of Chandigarh, 1996 Scheme” and 10 were reserved for different categories. Smt. Girija S. Nayyar succeeded and later her allotment was sought to be cancelled on the ground that along with her, her husband S.K. Nayyar had also applied. This according to the petitioner, contravenes Sub-Clause (5) of Clause III of the advertisement, which says that only one member of the family can apply. Civil Writ Petition No.15727 of 2009 Smt. Girija S. Nayyar had filed an appeal before the Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board. During the pendency of the said appeal, an application was filed by the applicant before the Lok Adalat to resolve the dispute. An effort was made by the Lok Adalat to resolve the dispute, but having failed, the Lok Adalat invoked section 22 C (8) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. I have perused the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. It is a well reasoned, just and appropriate order, whereby an effort has been made to allay the hardship, which the applicant was facing. On a technical ground that the husband and wife both had applied and the wife succeeded, therefore the allotment is to be cancelled, was held to be unjust and discriminatory, because in the case of one Renu Bala, the Board had proceeded to allot the flat. Mr. Indresh Goel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that one wrong cannot make another wrong good. He further states that breach of condition, in itself, will disentitle the respondent applicant from allotment of the flat. Thirdly, learned counsel says that since the appeal has been pending, the relief granted by the Lok Adalat cannot be dispensed with. The Permanent Lok Adalat had taken into consideration that both husband and wife in their affidavits had disclosed that they have filed application form for allotment of the flat. The Lok Adalat also took into consideration that respondent applicant fulfilled the eligibility criteria and is bonafide resident of Chandigarh. The Lok Adalat also concluded that the mistake on the part of the applicant was not that grave that the allotment should be cancelled and the 10 per cent amount be deducted from the allotment money. 2 Civil Writ Petition No.15727 of 2009 I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat and there is no justification to cause interference. Hence, the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is affirmed and present writ petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 13, 2009 rps 3