IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9710 of 2009 Date of Decision : 17.02.2011. Smt. Dhan Devi .....Petitioner VERSUS The Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for respondent No. 1 RANJIT SINGH, J. The husband of the petitioner was running a cloth shop at site No. 85, Rehri Market, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh. He was allotted hand-cart licence by the Chandigarh Administration. After death of her husband, licence was transferred in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be regularly paying the Rehri fee to the Administration and even has an identity card issued on her name. Chandigarh Administration has floated a scheme to allot built up booths on lease/hire purchase basis for those who are holding a valid hand cart licence or hawkers licence as well as driving licence. The petitioner deposited the requisite amount in 1991 for allotment of booth. Her claim has, however, been declined on the ground that the Tehsildar found one Gurcharan Lal son of Pyare Lal working at site No. 85. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, who declined to interfere in the same. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application before Permanent Lok Adalat, which has also declined to interfere in this case on the basis of available material. Civil Writ Petition No. 9710 of 2009 -2- Counsel for the petitioner would make reference to the documents to show that the said Gurcharan Lal, who statedly was working at Site No. 85, Sector 22-D, has been allotted booth in lieu of site where he was actually working. Reference in this regard is made to Annexures P-17 and P-18, where Gurcharan Lal is shown to have been allotted a booth in lieu of Site No. 109, Sector 22D, which was occupied by him. Apparently, the Estate Officer appears to have not taken into consideration the full material that was either available or was produced by him. It may be a bit difficult for this Court to decide the facts, which are in dispute but apparently, the petitioner has shown something, which would contradict the observation/finding recorded by the Estate Officer as well as the appellate authority and the finding as returned by the Permanent Lok Adalat. Considering this fact, I deem it appropriate to give liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application before Estate Officer alongwith all the supporting matter and evidence that she would have to show that the petitioner was working from site No. 85, Sector 22D, Rehri Market. The Estate Officer shall consider the same and after obtaining any information that the petitioner may plead pass a fresh order on the application so made by the petitioner. The parties would be at liberty to take any further action in case of any adverse order passed against them. February 17, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE