R.S.A.No. 3420 of 2005 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3420 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.11.2009 Har Parkash ......Appellant Versus The Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sarwan Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.N.S.Rapri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.P.S.Bajwa, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Har Parkash filed a suit for declaration, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 1.5.2001. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 5.4.2005. Hence, the present appeal. The case of the plaintiff as set up in the plaint, in brief, R.S.A.No. 3420 of 2005 (O&M) 2 was that a Housing Scheme known as Self Financing Housing Scheme, 1989 (for short 'the Scheme) was floated by defendant Chandigarh Housing Board (for short 'the Board). Plaintiff also applied under the said Scheme under reserved category for Category II residential flat. Draw of lots was held on 1.12.1989 and the plaintiff was declared successful in the draw of lots. An intimation was sent to the plaintiff in this regard vide letter dated 10.12.1990 and name of the plaintiff was registered at No.1007, First Floor, Category-II, Manimajra. After completing all the formalities and payment of all instalments, a letter dated 25.9.1993 referring to a letter dated 2.12.1991 was received by the plaintiff requesting him to furnish the following details:- “(a) S.C.Certificate from the competent authority of Chandigarh Administration duly attested by Gazetted Officer. (b) Your three specimen signatures duly attested by a Gazetted Officer indicating his name clearly. (c ) The GPA given in favour of Laxmi Narain Bansal be got cancelled under intimation to this office. (d) Affidavit of property as specimen.” The said information had already been submitted along with application. It was not possible for the plaintiff to submit a Scheduled Caste Certificate from Chandigarh Administration as he was an employee of Punjab Government and was posted at R.S.A.No. 3420 of 2005 (O&M) 3 Hoshiarpur. Vide letter dated 24.12.1993, the registration and allocation of the plaintiff was cancelled without any reason. The plaintiff submitted his application dated 7.1.1994 in response to the letter of cancellation. However, the request of the plaintiff was not considered and an order refunding the amount deposited by him was passed. Hence, the suit was filed. Defendant in its written statement took up preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable and was time barred. On merits, it was averred that the plaintiff had deposited the instalments and it was admitted that letter dated 25.9.1993 was issued to the plaintiff. It was denied that letter dated 2.12.1991 had not been received by the plaintiff. It was further averred that the plaintiff had, in fact, sold the flat to Laxmi Narain Bansal. The certificate to the effect that the plaintiff belonged to the Scheduled Caste category had to be issued by the Chandigarh Administration as specified in the application form. The spouse of the plaintiff had not furnished an affidavit to the effect that she did not own property as specified in the Scheme. The plaintiff was also asked to furnish original General Power of Attorney executed by him in favour of Laxmi Narain Bansal. However, the plaintiff had failed to comply with the said direction. The plaintiff failed to give any reply to the show cause notice served on him on 8.9.1993. thereafter, the cancellation order was passed. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were R.S.A.No. 3420 of 2005 (O&M) 4 framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands? OPD 5. Relief. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order of cancellation had not been passed by the competent authority. No hearing had been given to the plaintiff before passing of the cancellation order. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that in the meeting held on 28.8.1986, the powers of the Board were delegated to the Chairman regarding allotment letters (shown during the course of arguments) and the Chairman, after considering the entire facts, had passed the cancellation order (shown during the course of arguments), which had been communicated by the Development Officer. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, the plaintiff had sought allotment of Category II residential flat under the Scheme and was allotted a flat. The R.S.A.No. 3420 of 2005 (O&M) 5 acceptance of the deposits given by the plaintiff, in pursuance of allotment of the flat to him, was subject to the condition that, in fact, he was found ineligible due to furnishing of wrong information or otherwise then he would not be entitled for getting the allotment of the house. The said condition was envisaged in letter dated 10.12.1990 Ex.D-1. Admittedly, the plaintiff was asked to supply information qua four heads, as reproduced above. However, the plaintiff failed to comply with the same and did not furnish the relevant information as demanded by the Board. Show cause notice Ex.D-9 was issued to the plaintiff regarding cancellation of the flat but he failed to give any reply to the same and consequently the cancellation order Ex.D-10 was passed by the Chairman, who had been delegated the powers by the Board. The amount deposited by the plaintiff has been refunded to him in accordance with rules. Hence, in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent, there is no force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 9, 2009 anita