SUKHPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On May 14, 1980, plot No. 2018, Phase I, Dugri Road, Ludhiana was allotted to the petitioner and the later was informed about it by the Estate Officer on May 15, 1980. The petitioner was directed to send the requisite application for the allotment of a plot on the prescribed form accompanied by an affidavit and a draft for Rs. 2750/-. The petitioner complied with the direction on May 19, 1980. On May 21, 1980 the petitioner was given plot No. 2501, Phase 1, Dugri Road, Ludhiana, in exchange for Plot No. 2018. On January 15, 1981, the petitioner submitted an affidavit to the Estate Officer that he had become major on December 15, 1980. In the application that he had submitted earlier on May 19, 1980, he had given his age as 18-1/2 years. In view of the fact that the petitioner had become major on December 15, 1980, it is obvious that he was not 18-1/2 years on May 19, 1980. The Estate Officer issued a show cause notice dated April 27, 1981 (P.2) to the petitioner wherein it was proposed to cancel his allotment of the plot on the ground that he had wrongly given his age as 18/1-2 years in the prescribed application that he submitted in May, 1980. This show cause notice was issued under Section 10 of the Punjab Urban Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The petitioner submitted his reply (P.3) dated May 14, 1981, to the show cause notice. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, vide memo No. SUD- 1/4545, dated May 22, 1982, (P.6) exercising of the petitioner with respect to the plot allotted to him. The petitioner has assailed P.6 in the present writ.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that section 11-A of the Act was inserted by the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 1981, and it came into force on May 24, 1981. The order under Section 11-A could be passed against the petitioner affording him a reasonable opportunity. No show cause notice was issued to the petitioner after May 24, 1981. The show cause notice (P.2) issued to him on April 27, 1981, was under section 10 of the Act. The impugned order P.6 is liable to be quashed having been passed without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The contention is without merit.

(3.) It is true that an order could be passed by the competent authority against the petitioner under section 11-A of the Act after affording him a reasonable opportunity. There can be no manner of doubt that the petitioner had been afforded a reasonable opportunity before the impugned order P.6 was passed. The petitioner had been issued a show cause notice dated April 27, 1981, (P.2). He gave reply thereto dated May 14, 1981, (P.3). It has been averred in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents that the reply submitted by the petitioner had been taken into consideration when the impugned order was passed. Under these circumstances, it was not necessary to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner after May 24, 1981, when section 11-A was inserted in the Act. The petitioner having been afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing the impugned order cannot be set aside on this ground.