IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3803 of 2009 Date of decision: 14th October, 2009 Shera Khanna … Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Administration and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Jatinderjit Kaur, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was licensed by the Chandigarh Administration to carry on the business of fruit-vendor in Sabzi Mandi, Sector 26, Chandigarh. Learned counsel submits that initially Som Nath, father of the petitioner, was granted hand-cart license No.957, having registration No.2567. His father expired on 6th September, 1991 and in accordance with the provisions of law, the license was transferred in the name of the petitioner, as he was duly recognized as legal heir of Som Nath. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure P-5, the license, which has been transferred on his name. Counsel submits that in the end of year 2006, a survey was conducted by the Chandigarh Administration for allotment of Booths. In the survey, on the Rehri of the petitioner, one Tarlok was found present and on this score, petitioner was held not entitled to allotment of the Booth. Learned counsel submits that vide Annexure P-6, his claim for allotment of built-up Booth was rejected Civil Writ Petitions No.3803 of 2009 on the ground that the Screening Committee had scrutinized the same and found that the petitioner has given the Rehri to one Tarlok on rent and he himself is doing some other work. Counsel further submits that subject mentioned on communication (Annexure P-6) reveals that the same was only confined to allotment of built-up Booth, but the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh suo-motu has also cancelled the license and registration of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that for cancellation of the license and registration, he was required to be heard. It has been urged that in the present petition, petitioner will confine his prayer only qua setting aside the order of cancellation of license and registration and he will not pursue his claim for allotment of built-up Booth. The order (Annexure P-6) was challenged in appeal. The Appellate Authority held that the order cancelling the lease of Booth or its allotment is not an appealable order. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that a show cause notice ought to have been served upon the petitioner for cancellation of license and registration, and due opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted to the petitioner. Since, the authority has not done the needful, therefore, the order cancelling the license and registration of Rehri of the petitioner is set aside and order of non- allotment of built-up Booth is upheld. However, the authorities shall be at liberty to cancel the license and registration of Rehri of the petitioner, if necessary, by following due procedure, in accordance with provisions of law. With these observations, present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 14, 2009 rps 2