RAVINDER SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari seeking quashing of resumption order dtd. 10/7/2003 (Annexure P-6), order dtd. 25/3/2009 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.3 and order dtd. 16/2/2020 passed by respondent No.6 imposing misuse charges and also the order dtd. 15/2/2012 (Annexure P-13) vide which the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No.2. Petitioner has further sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the site in question to him.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the grandfather of the petitioner was allotted SCF No. 21, Sector 21-C, Chandgiarh vide letter of allotment dtd. 10/10/1960. As per the condition of the allotment letter, the site in question was allotted for general trade. The original allottee i.e. Niranjan Singh died in the year 2001. After his death, father of the petitioner namely Gurmail Singh started using the site in question. The father of the petitioner also died in the year 2016. Pursuant to a show cause notice dtd. 26/7/2002 (Annexure P-5) respondent No.4 resumed the site in question vide order dtd. 10/7/2003 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner challenged the above order by filing Appeal No. 180 of 2004. The respondent No.3 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order 4/5/2006 (Annexure P-7). The petitioner thereafter challenged the order of respondent No.3 before respondent No.2, who remanded the case back vide order dtd. 12/7/2006 (Annexure P-9) for passing a speaking order in accordance with law after giving proper hearing to the parties. Respondent No.3 accepted the appeal filed by the allottee vide order dtd. 25/3/2009 (Annexure P-10). The above order was subject to the condition that the misuse charges which are payable under the law, shall be paid by the allottee within 30 days from the date the same is communicated to him, failing which the resumption order passed by Estate Officer-respondent No.4 shall become operational. The misuse charges were intimated to the petitioner on 16/2/2010 (Annexure P-11). Since the order dtd. 25/3/2009 passed by the Chief Administrator (respondent No.3) for deposit of misuse charges was not complied with, the resumption order dtd. 10/7/2003 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Estate Officer-respondent No.4 came into operation. Ultimately a notice under Sec. 4 (i) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1971' for short) was served on the occupant of the site on 17/8/2021 calling upon him to show cause as to why the order of eviction be not passed in respect of the site in question.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the authorities below could not have imposed the misuse charges for a period which is more than six months as an outer limit is prescribed under the relevant Rules. He further argued that the order dtd. 16/2/2010 (Annexure P-11) imposing penalty is a non-speaking order and no reasons have been given for imposing such a huge amount of penalty and that the same has been imposed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. All principles of natural justice have been violated. The order imposing penalty has been passed mechanically without there being any application of mind. Even the show cause notice issued in the year 2002 before the resumption proceedings did not contain a provision for imposition of penalty and it is a settled proportion of law that the authority cannot go beyond the scope of show cause notice. The petitioner has been discriminated against. As when the show cause notices were issued in the year 2002, the same were issued to the entire market, however, rest of the persons managed the inspector and continued the misuse. The petitioner has been singled out and the order of resumption has been passed. The petitioner is being compelled to run from pillar to post and a penalty of an enormous amount of Rs.8,28,000.00 on account of alleged misuse is being demanded.