AMAR NATH Vs. THE CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated 12.8.2009 (P -1); order dated 12.1.2010 (P -3) and the final orders dated 18.8.2010 (P -5) and 9.3.2011 (P -8) cancelling the lease of Booth No. 2 Rehri Market, Sector -9, Chandigarh for failure of the petitioner to execute a lease deed in terms of Rule 14 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (for short the "1973 rules"). The facts are that the petitioner was allotted a built up commercial Booth No. 2 Rehri Market, Sector -9, Chandigarh on 5.5.2005 on lese hold basis for 99 years. The booth was one of several booths allotted to handcart/rehri licence holders operating in certain markets including the above market for decades in terms of a rehabilitation scheme floated for the purpose. The petitioner pleads that being an illiterate person he could not execute the lease deed in terms of the 1973 rules within the time specified. He is prepared to comply with the rule without demur if given a chance. Specifically in question in this petition is Rule 14 of the 1973 rules which reads as follows:

(2.) SINCE Rule 14 (1) of 1973 rules requires a lease deed to be executed by an allottee with the U.T. Administration within six months of the date of allotment/auction, on failure of the petitioner to do so the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh passed an ex parte order dated 12.8.2009 cancelling the lease of the built up booth for failure to execute lease deed within the time prescribed citing the case as one of invocation of jurisdiction as a last resort. The 25% of premium paid by the petitioner towards premium of the site was ordered to be forfeited in terms of Rule 14(2) of the above quoted rule of the 1973 rules.

(3.) STILL aggrieved by the order of the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, the petitioner filed a revision under Rule 22 (4) of the 1973 rules impugning the order of forfeiture of 25% of the premium as being harsh and burdensome on a underprivileged Hawker/Rehriwala trying to eke out a living from the booth allotted under a scheme of rehabilitation. The Adviser to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, rejected the revision petition by order dated 18.8.2010 upholding the action as justified under Rule 14(2) of the 1973 rules.