IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3697 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 12th November, 2009 Sukhmal Jain … Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Administration and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Sanwana, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner has sought quashing of impugned orders (Annexure P-10, dated 10th February, 2003; Annexure P-12, dated 28th August, 2003; Annexure P-13, dated 9th December, 2003; Annexure P-15, dated 12th September, 2006; Annexure P-16, dated 28th June, 2007 and Annexure P-17, dated 21st November, 2007). Before the nature of impugned orders, relief sought and legal submissions made, are noticed, it will be necessary to recapitulate the facts of the case. Petitioner was running a Rehri prior to year 1974. In the year 1974, Chandigarh Administration had issued a Handcart License, bearing No.1180 and on the basis of that he was allotted fixed site No.158 in Bajwara Market, Sector 22, Chandigarh. It is not disputed that Bajwara market was engulfed in fire tragedy and therefore, Chandigarh Administration had drawn a scheme to rehabilitate the Rehri owners/Handcart pullers by allotting them built-up booths. The scheme enacted in this regard is known as “Allotment/Transfer Civil Writ Petition No. 3697 of 2008 (O&M) of built-up booths on lease/higher purchase basis”. To determine the eligibility and entitlement of the Handcart owners for allotment of booths, a survey was conducted on 10th April, 1991. Area Inspector was asked to make a report. On 15th April, 1991, he reported that he visited the spot and found the petitioner running the business of readymade garments at site No.158/22-D, Chandigarh. This inspection report has been annexed with the present petition as Annexure P-4. On the basis of said inspection report, Chandigarh Administration took a conscious decision. The decision has been annexed as Annexure P-5 and the same reads as under: “Kindly refer to your D.O. No.P/CH/93/675 dated 3.7.93 regarding renewal of licence of Shri Sukhmal Jain, rehri market Sector 22-D, Chandigarh. The case of Shri Sukhmal Jain for renewal of his licence for the period 1987 to till date has been considered and accepted, provided the person concerned pays all the dues as per requirement of rules. As regard the allotment of booth the case would be examined with reference to the scheme as in other cases. This is for your kind information.” Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in compliance of Annexure P-5, petitioner had deposited the entire dues and the receipt relied to this effect has been annexed as Annexure P-6. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide Annexure P-10 on the ground that the petitioner failed to renew his license after 31st March, 1987. Against the decision not to allot booth, petitioner filed an appeal. The appeal, vide order (Annexure P-13) was dismissed on the ground that in the rules, there is no provision for appeal against the decision of the Estate Officer. Even after the appeal was rejected, Tehsildar-cum-Licensing Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh directed Sub-Inspector (Enforcement), Estate Office, Union Territory, Chandigarh to carry fresh inspection and report whether the petitioner is engaged in the Rehri business or not. On 25th September, 2004, Sub Inspector (Enforcement) reported that the petitioner was found doing the 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 3697 of 2008 (O&M) business of selling clothes on Adda No.158 in the said market in the presence of witnesses. The letter calling for the report and the report submitted, have been annexed as Annexure P-14. The report submitted by the Tehsildar was considered by the Estate Officer, who held that one time golden opportunity was given to the petitioner and at that time, he was not found in possession of valid license as same was not renewed. Therefore, he was not entitled to allotment of the booth. Eviction of the petitioner was ordered, against which the petitioner had filed an appeal under the Public Premises Act and the same was rejected vide impugned order (Annexure P-16). The revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh on 21st November, 2007. Thus, to sum up, the impugned order (Annexure P-10) was passed by the Estate Officer to say that the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of built up booth, as he had not got his license renewed. Vide Annexure P-12, the Estate Officer, stated that the request of the petitioner was considered and rejected. Annexure P-13 is the order passed in appeal, wherein it was stated that no appeal lie against the order of the Estate Officer, where it was decided that petitioner is not entitled to allotment of the built up booth. Annexure P-15 is again a communication from the Estate Officer, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to allotment of the booth, as his license was cancelled. Annexure P-16 is the order passed in appeal preferred under the Public Premises Act, wherein the petitioner had sought that order of his eviction be set aside. After noticing the facts above, following unassailable facts emerge: (a) Petitioner, prior to year 1974, was engaged in a business of selling goods on a Rehri. (b) Petitioner was granted Handcart license No.1180 in year 1974. 3 Civil Writ Petition No. 3697 of 2008 (O&M) (c) Petitioner had occupied site No.158 in Bajwara Market, Sector 22, Chandigarh, which was allotted to the petitioner. (d) As per various inspection reports submitted, till today petitioner is doing the business of selling readymade garments from site No.158, Bajwara Market, Sector 22, Chandigarh. (e) The only handicap, which the petitioner is facing, is that his license was not renewed after 1987, therefore, he has been held disentitled to allotment of the built-up booth. (f) It is admitted that petitioner was victim of fire tragedy, which engulfed the Bajwara Market and the petitioner had to be allotted a built-up booth. (g) Based on inspection report (Annexure P-4), petitioner was permitted to deposit all dues and he was assured that on deposit of the dues, his case will be examined for allotment. Order (Annexure P-5) has been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment. Petitioner, in pursuance of Annexure P-5, had deposited all the dues and receipt (Annexure P-6) was issued to him. Taking into consideration the facts enumerated above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be denied allotment of the booth, on the basis of very hyper technical approach that his license was not renewed. The objective of the scheme was to rehabilitate the Handcart owners. The petitioner is carrying on the business till today. A remiss on his part will not make him disentitled, for all times to come, to allotment of the booth. The action of the respondents will defeat the intention and objectives of the scheme, for which the same was adopted by the Chandigarh Administration, especially when the Chandigarh Administration, based on 4 Civil Writ Petition No. 3697 of 2008 (O&M) various inspection reports, concluded that the case of the petitioner is to be considered, in case he deposits entire dues. Present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to allot a built-up booth to the petitioner. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 12, 2009 rps 5