SARJU KUMAR Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISHWAR Dass was given a hand-cart licence. He was allotted site No. 20 in the Rehri Market of Sector 15, Chandigarh. He sublet the Rehri to the petitioner in the year 1986. This matter came to the notice of the Licensing Officer. He gave a notice to Ishwar Dass as well as the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted his reply along with Ishwar Dass. They were heard. Vide order dated September 2, 1993 the Licensing Officer found that "Shri Ishwar Dass has violated the terms and conditions of bye-laws." It was noticed that in Clause 17(vi) of the Bye-laws it has been specifically provided that "the licensee shall not allow the use of hand-cart allotted to him by a person other that himself in any manner whatsoever." Since Ishwar Dass has sublet, he had acted in violation of the Bye-laws. Therefore, his Licence No. 1899 was cancelled. This order has, admittedly, attained finality.

(2.) DESPITE the cancellation of the licence, the petitioner continued to run the Rehri at site No. 20. Consequently, the proceedings for his eviction were initiated under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Vide order dated June 28, 2000, the Estate Officer held that the petitioner "is unauthorised occupant of site No. 20, Rehri Stand, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh...." He was ordered to vacate the premises within 15 days. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Chandigarh. This appeal was heard and dismissed by the District Judge vide order dated August 9, 2000. Hence this petition.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. V.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner. A two- fold submission has been made. Firstly, it has been contended that the Estate Officer has passed the impugned order without granting an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Secondly, it has been submitted that booths are available. Various other persons, who were sub-lessees, have been allotted booths. Thus, even the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of a built-up booth. On this basis it is prayed that the claim, as made in the writ petition, be allowed.