Civil Writ Petition No. 17992 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17992 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 25, 2011 Om Parkash .....Petitioner VERSUS Union Territory of Chandigarh & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Aman Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. KK Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition primarily to seek direction to the respondents to issue 'No Due Certificate' to him. In fact, the petitioner is seeking intimation about the outstanding amount due, if any and further direction to the respondents to affix the licence fee as per the new Rules as on date in case there is any change in licence fee in respect of Booth site No.137-A, Dadu Majra Colony, U.T., Chandigarh. As averred in the petition, a Booth No.137-A, Dadu Majra Colony, U.T. Chandigarh was allotted to the petitioner in December, 1989 as a licensee. On 4.9.1991, the allotment /licence in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the Estate Officer. The Civil Writ Petition No. 17992 of 2009 -2- petitioner claims that this was done on erroneous ground that there was another allotment made in his favour in Labour Colony Sector 14. The petitioner contested this order by filing appeal before the Chief Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh. The appeal was accepted on 1.8.1997 and the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was restored. The petitioner, thereafter, deposited arrears of licence fee on 25.6.2001 by way of draft drawn on Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. The petitioner then requested the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, to intimate arrears if any, so that he could deposit the same. The petitioner again moved an application dated 28.7.2003 along with draft of Rs.500/-. The petitioner had also applied for 'No Due Certificate' in respect of the booth. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that he had submitted an application again on 16.10.2003 for issuance of 'No Due Certificate' and requested the respondents to intimate the arrears of licence fee, if any, but despite repeated reminders no response is received. Apprehending that the respondents are still contemplating the resumption/cancellation of site allotted to him, the petitioner moved an application on 25.3.2009 requesting the CPIO, Estate Officer, Chandigarh to provide him the copies of notices issued in respect of Booth No. 137-A, Dadu Majra, Chandigarh. In response to this application, the petitioner was asked to appear in the office on any working day between 12.00 to 1.00 p.m. The petitioner was supplied certain documents, but nothing was told about issuance of 'No Due Certificate'. Reference is made to some Civil Writ Petition No. 17992 of 2009 -3- letter written by Home Secretary-cum-Chief Vigilance Officer to Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh that the file was not received by them. Claiming that the petitioner is suffering because of action on the part of the respondents, he has filed the present writ petition. In reply, preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents to submit that the petitioner is seeking issuance of 'No Due Certificate' in order to sell the site so as to defeat the action, which is in progress against this allotment. It is pointed out that Booth No.137-A, Dadu Majra Colony, Chandigarh was allotted to the the petitioner on 8.12.1989 under the Rehabilitation Scheme of the Chandigarh Administration. Subsequently, it was noticed that the petitioner had got the allotment of this booth by concealing the fact of his earlier allotment of shop No.15, Sector 14, Labour Colony, Chandigarh. This fact was noticed on receiving a letter from the petitioner himself, copy of which is annexed as Annexure R-1. The respondents have also placed on record Annexure R-2, which shows that both the booths were allotted to the petitioner. The competent authority, therefore, cancelled the allotment of Booth No.137-A, Dadu Majra Colony, U.T. Chandigarh. Against this order of cancellation, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority set aside the cancellation order and directed the respondents to hold a detailed inquiry. The inquiry could not be completed as the petitioner has not appeared in response to the notices. It is, accordingly, prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the petitioner may be directed to attend the enquiry proceedings before the competent authority. Civil Writ Petition No. 17992 of 2009 -4- When this case came up for hearing before this Court on 18.4.2011 above noted facts were noticed by this Court. Since the detailed inquiry was being held against the petitioner, where he had not come forward to participate, directions were issued to the petitioner to appear before the inquiry officer. The right of the respondents to inquire into these issues was recognized and so also their right to cancel this allotment once the petitioner had obtained such allotment in violation of the rules and requirement of rehabilitation. The petitioner was also directed to file an affidavit to the effect that he has not been allotted two booths besides appearing before the inquiry officer. The petitioner has not filed requisite affidavit. The counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments candidly conceded before me that the petitioner has been allotted two booths. While the order was being dictated, the counsel for the petitioner interjected to submit that the affidavit is ready with him, but he could not file the same. This is first time, it is so disclosed, and earlier during the course of arguments, no such submission was made. In view of the facts as noticed above, the stance of the petitioner to obtain 'No Due Certificate' appears motivated and is actuated with some hidden intention. His aim appears to be to sell this booth, so that he can get over the issue of cancellation which is under contemplation. The person, who seeks a relief in equity must come to the Court with clean hands. If an attempt is made to mislead the Court, the same is required to be curbed and discouraged. Even otherwise, I do not find any justification to Civil Writ Petition No. 17992 of 2009 -5- direct the respondents to issue 'No Due Certificate' when the very entitlement of the petitioner to the allotment is in question. It is not only the allotment which is under question, but in fact allotment of a booth in favour of the petitioner had been earlier cancelled. It is only on account of some technicalities that the appellate authority required the respondent- Estate Officer to inquire into the matter before taking a final decision. The petitioner has been able to scuttle the inquiry for a considerable period of 4 years. Now the petitioner has appeared to participate in the inquiry. Counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that they are likely to complete the inquiry shortly. The respondents would be at liberty to hold and conclude the inquiry and pass any appropriate order in accordance with law. No case for issuance of any direction for release of 'No Due Certificate' is made out. There is no merit in the pleas raised in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. May 25, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE