SOHAN SINGH Vs. CHAIRMAN, HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Sohan Singh, petitioner, has filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing order Annexure P.1 vide which allotment of the petitioner was cancelled with regard to Low Income category house. The petitioner has further prayed that writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents and they be directed to allot a dwelling unit at Chandigarh against his right which accrued to his wife Swinder Kaur.

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :- Smt. Swinder Kaur wife of the petitioner applied to the Chandigarh Housing Board for allotment of a quarter under Low Income category in the month of January, 1978. Lots were drawn for the allotment of quarters and wife of the petitioner was one of the successful allottees in the draw of lots which took place on 29.6.1985. Unfortunate for the petitioner, his wife expired on 20.2.1987. According to the petitioner Sohan Singh, no letter of allotment was received by Smt. Swinder Kaur during her life time or after her death. On 10.5.1995, he received letter intimating that Smt. Swinder Kaur was allotted a dwelling unit No. 3079/1 in Sector 45-D, Chandigarh vide allotment letter No. 914 dated 29.8.1995 and the said house has been cancelled under clause 19 of the allotment letter dated 17.11.1985 due to non-payment of the demanded amount as well as required documents. The petitioner in response to the letter dated 10.5.1995 wrote to the Chief Accounts Officer, Chandigarh Housing Board and made a detailed representation stating therein that no intimation was received by his wife during her life time or after her death. On 2.8.1995, petitioner again made request to the authorities that a dwelling unit be allotted to him and he is ready to pay the price and other charges required by the respondents. On 12.9.1995, the petitioner met respondent No. 1 and made another representation on the same terms. So-much-so, the petitioner even met Member Parliament Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal who also recommended his case to respondent No. 1 but no action was taken. The Member Parliament wrote D.O. letter pointing out that the allotment letter was wrongly addressed. It was sent at the address of Sector 41 instead of Sector 47.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.