RAM SARUP MALHOTRA Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE allotment of shop-cum-flat No. 12 in Sector 20-C in Chandigarh, which had been made in petitioner's favour in 1960, has been cancelled by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, respondent No. 3 by an order (Annexure 'a') dated 9-12-1969 and the site has been directed to be resumed. The reason given is that the site had been allotted to the petitioner for carrying on the business of manufacture of Biscuits and Bakery and that he had misused the premises for the manufacture and sale of sweets by carrying on Halwai's business. It was also found that in the original allotment letter, on the respondent's records the word 'sweets' has been interpolated in collusion with some official in the Estate office and that it could be reasonably inferred that the petitioner who derived the benefit of the interpolation was a party thereto. An appeal (Annexure 'b') filed b the petitioner has been dismissed by an order dated 21st May, 1970 (Annexure 'c') of the Chief Administrator, respondent No. 2, and a revision petition (Annexure 'd') filed before the Chief Commissioner respondent No. 1, has also not met with any better fate vide order dated 28-7-1970 (Annexure 'e' ). The allottee now invokes this Court's Civil Writ jurisdiction by a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No. 4 is the next door shopkeeper on whose complaint this action had been taken against the petitioner by respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

(2.) IN a return filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, it has been alleged that the Bakery site in dispute had been allotted to the petitioner on his application for carrying on the business of manufacture of Biscuits and Bakery only. He had missed the premises on an earlier occasion also in the year 1962 but on a notice issued, the misuse had been discontinued. Even on that occasion, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in the High Court against the proposed resumption of his plot. He had, however, dismantled and demolished the open furnace or bhatti and had undertaken not to sell sweets at the shop in further, as desired by the respondents. A spot inspection had been carried out on 18-7-1965 and an officer of the respondent -administration had reported that the misuse had been discontinued. It was, however, found that his misuse of the premises had again been resumed by the petitioner in December, 1969. Action for the breach of Rule 9 of the Chandigarh (Sale of sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960 was therefore, initiated against the petitioner. it was denied that there was any defect or illegality in the acts or proceedings of the respondents or that the orders passed were not speaking orders. The petitioner was said to have been guilty of having the records tampered with and the findings of fact arrived at by the respondents could not be challenged in these proceedings. In his application for allotment (Annexure 'r. I'), the petitioner had stated that he had been carrying on a Bakery Shop at Bajwara for some years and that under the general policy of resettlement of Bajwara oustees, he had been allotted a Bakery site. After constructing the building, he had started only Bakery work in the shop. As this business was not proving profitable, he had asked for permission to use the premises as a Restaurant. He undertook to keep the premises neat and clean and in a state of proper sanitation. There was another Annexure R-2 dated 15-7-1965 to these returns in which the petitioner had assured the respondent -administration that he had stopped selling sweets in the shop as desired by the Chief Administrator. He had himself by an official of the respondent -administration so that final action could be taken for restoration to him of the resumed premises.

(3.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 to 3 have given cogent reasons for their concurrent findings of fact that there have been some subsequent interpolations in the allotment application and the order of allotment. There was no column in the printed form of application for allotment of sites against which the information given at an unnatural place at the top has been incorporated. The petitioner's signatures appear at the bottom of this application and he has described himself there as a Bakeriwala. In the first paragraphs of the writ petition also, the petitioner had mentioned that he had been carrying on only Bakery business at Bajwara since 1953. The words 'sweet' or 'sweet shop' may, therefore, appear to have been grafted unnaturally in these documents relating to the allotment of the premises. It was necessary for the respondents to take up the question whether these writings were interpolations or forgeries in order to decide whether action could or could not be taken under Rule 9 for the resumption of the site. I therefore, do not see any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mehta, that the respondents had no jurisdiction to fix the petitioner's liability for these interpolations or forgeries. It was no the petitioner's civil or criminal liability under the ordinary law of the land that was being enforced and it was only for the limited purpose of seeing whether powers vested in the respondents under Rule 9 could be invoke or not that the question was gone into.