IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15352 of 2009 Date of Decision: 08.10.2009 The Estate Office, Union Territory, Chandigarh Petitioner Versus Sanjeev Verma and another Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Ms.Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner ….. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to an order dated 18.10.2007 (P5), passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh (in short the Lok Adalat), vide which, the petitioner was directed to allot one vacant booth/ shop to the respondent No.1. Perusal of record indicates that to rehabilitate those mechanics, who were running the business of auto electrician since 1987, the Chandigarh Administration formulated a scheme known as ‘Allotment of Sites on Lease Hold Basis to the auto Spare Parts Dealers and Auto Repair Mechanics in Chandigarh Scheme 1999’ (in short, the Scheme). For allotment, the parameters were set down in that scheme and for that purpose, a survey was conducted, to find out the eligible persons. Petitioner’s name figured at serial No.1039 in the survey list, prepared in the year 1997. He being eligible, applied for allotment of booth on 25.6.1996 Civil Writ Petition No.15352 of 2009 and had also deposited an amount of Rs.14,500/-. On receipt of a letter from the Estate Officer, he also deposited an amount of Rs.35,654/- in the month of February 2001. The matter remained pending with the authorities and subsequently, vide letter dated 18.7.2006, issued by the Estate Officer, respondent No.1 was intimated that his application has been rejected. Compelled under the circumstances mentioned above, the petitioner filed an application before the Lok Adalat under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short, the Act). After contest, application was decided in his favour, vide the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for interference in the order, under challenge. The Lok Adalat has noticed that the petitioner’s name figured in the survey list, prepared in the year 1997, i.e. two years earlier to the framing of the Scheme, to rehabilitate those, working as auto electrician. When list was prepared, framing of the Scheme was not yet in sight. Case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was working in front of the shop owned by his brother. Be that as it may, it has come on record that the petitioner was working as an auto electrician at the time when the Scheme came into existence. There is no evidence on record that the petitioner was dependent upon his brother. It was rightly held that the petitioner was not a not a family member of his brother, to whom a shop was allotted under the Scheme. Findings given by the Lok Adalat are perfectly justified. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 6.10.2009, counsel for the petitioner raised an argument that value of the booth is more than Rs.ten 2 Civil Writ Petition No.15352 of 2009 lacs and as such, the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain application filed by respondent No.1. On above said date, following order was passed:- “Counsel for the petitioner wishes to show that the petitioner has taken a specific stand before the Lok Adalat that value of the booth in question is more than Rs.10 lacs and as such Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to try the suit. On request, adjourned to October 8, 2009.” Counsel for the petitioner has failed to show to the Court that this plea was taken before the Lok Adalat or that value of the property is more than Rs.10 lacs. Dismissed. 08.10.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 3