D R TRIKHA Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner of the petitioner is that even though a High Income Group category house at Chandigarh was allotted to him by the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, and a communication to that effect, was issued by the Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, to the petitioner on 8th June, 1990, yet till today possession of the house allotted has not been delivered to him Even the written request made by the petitioner on 29th October, 1990, for intimating the initial amount required to be deposited by him has not been attended to. It is also contended by the petitioner that a number of other persons who ware allotted houses/flats out of the discretionary quota, like the petitioner, have since been allowed to take possession of the premises allotted.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by respondent No. 2-Housing Board Chandigarh, it has been pleaded that in fact the communication issued by the Chairman of the respondent Board on 8th June, 1991, intimating to the petitioner the decision of the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, regarding allotment of the house did not amount to an allotment letter, but it was only in the nature of an intimation regarding decision of allotment. It has been further pleaded that after issuing the letter conveying the decision of the respondent Board to allot the house in question to the petitioner on 5-9-1990, the provisions of Regulation 26 of the Chandigarh Housing Board (allotment, 'management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1579, have been air landed. According to the stand in she written statement, the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of a House of the c is, discretionary quota according to the amended regulation.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the stand taken by the respondents is wholly untenable in law. The power to frame Regulations is conferred by Section 24 of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 197', as extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. A reading of the provisions of Section 74 of the Act clearly shows that no power has been conferred on the Board to frame regulations with retrospective effect.