KARNAIL SINGH SAINI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the order dated 18.4.1994, Annexure P.9, passed by respondent No. 3 - -Commissioner, Urban Estate Development Board, Chandigarh, whereby the allotment of plot made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. The petitioner is resident of Punjab and is serving in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh. Vide letter dated 6.5.1987, Annexure P.1, the petitioner was informed by the Superintendent Housing I Branch, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Chandigarh that the Government had decided to allot a plot of 250 square yards to him. Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 23.2.1988, Annexure P.2 asked the petitioner to complete the formalities i.e. deposit of 1/4th cost of the plot amounting to Rs. 7406.25 by bank draft and file an affidavit regarding income of family from all sources on a stamp paper of Rs. 3/ -. The petitioner filed the requisite affidavit vide Annexure P.4. Vide letter dated 12.11.1991, Annexure P.5, respondent No. 2 again asked the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 7406.25 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter. It was also made clear that in case the amount was not deposited within the stipulated period, the proposal for cancellation of allotment shall be sent to the government. On 29.11.1991, the petitioner got prepared the draft of Rs. 7410/ - Annexure P.6. According to the petitioner, there was no delay on his part but as a precautionary measure he wrote a letter to the Minister, Housing and Urban Development which was got entered in the diary register dated 12.4.1993. Vide letter dated 18.4.1994, Annexure P.9, the petitioner was informed by respondent No. 2 that in accordance with the decision taken in the meeting held under the chairmanship of the Commissioner on 6.1.1994, it was decided that the offer be declined and the amount deposited be refunded to the petitioner. As such, the draft deposited by the petitioner was returned and the allotment made was cancelled. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in cancelling the allotment of plot made in favour of the petitioner, he has approached this court through the present writ petition.

(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 4. A preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.4.1994 without filing an appeal before the Chief Administrator under Section 11 of the Punjab Urban Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 1964. Further, the necessary parties have not been impleaded in the writ petition. On merits, it has been stated that vide letter dated 6.5.1987, the petitioner had been allotted a plot measuring 250 square yards out of discretionary quota of the government subject to the completion of requisite formalities within seven days from the date of receipt of the said letter and in spite of grant of opportunities, the petitioner failed to deposit the requisite amount within the stipulated period. Thereafter, in accordance with the decision taken vide letter dated 18.1.1994 by the Additional Housing Commissioner, Annexure R.2, the offer of allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled vide letter dated 18.4.1994 (Annexure P.9). On these premises, prayer for dismissal of the writ petition has been made. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating those made in the petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents besides supporting the impugned order, submitted that in spite of grant of opportunities to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, the petitioner did not do the needful and thereafter on examining the entire matter, the allotment made in his favour was cancelled.