SHRIMATI RAM DULARI Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated February 3, 1992, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-12 with the writ petition. By this order, the Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, has rejected her representations, cancelled the allotment of Flat No. 291/1, Sector 45-A, which had been made in her favour and ordered the forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 54,000/- paid by her. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) IN the year 1987, the respondent-Board announced a Scheme for construction and allotment of 1100 flats "for one and all". The petitioner applied for allotment of one of the flats. She deposited an amount of Rs. 4000/- alongwith her application. A copy of this application has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. At Sr. No. 10 (a) in this application, the petitioner was required to state whether she or her husband or any of her dependent relations including unmarried children" own in full or in part on free hold/lease-hold or on hire-purchase basis a residential plot or house in Union Territory of Chandigarh or either of the Urban Estates of Mohali or Panchkula?". In response to this query, she had said "no". The petitioner avers that she had committed a mistake while submitting the application. A house No. 404, Sector 41-A, had been initially allotted to her husband. However, in pursuance to her application, the petitioner got a letter dated August 31, 1989 asking her to send more money because of the enhancement of the price of flats. In view of the fact that she had committed a mistake while submitting the original application, the petitioner states that she did not send the amount as demanded by the respondents through the above mentioned letter. On July 31, 1990, she was informed that House No. 291/1, Sector 45-A, had been allotted to her. She was asked to deposit Rs. 49, 875/- within thirty days. The petitioner avers that since she was not was not interested in the allotment of the house, she did not deposit the requisite amount within the stipulated period. She was given a reminder. In December 1990, she visited the office of the Board. She claims to have met one Shri Harnam Dass, the dealing superintendent. She explored the possibility of surrendering House No. 404, Sector 41-A so as to enable her to accept the allotment of House No. 291/1 Sector 45-A, Mr. Harnam Dass asked her to see him after three days. She met him. She was advised that the earlier house which was smaller in size could be surrendered and the newly allotted house could be given to her and the amount of money paid in respect of the earlier house in the shape of instalments would be adjusted against the newly allotted one--" She was asked to submit an application for this purpose. On December 27, 1990, the petitioner along with her husband sent an application stating that after taking the possession of the house now allotted to her in Sector 45-A, they will surrender the House No. 404, Sector 41-A which had been allotted under an earlier scheme. She also submitted a Bank Draft for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith the application. A copy of the application along with the affidavit has been produced on record as Annexures P-5 and P-6 to the petition. She avers that there was no mala fide on her part and that "she was not interested in getting a new allotment in her name until and unless the earlier house already (allotted) in the name of her husband was permitted to be surrendered. " Thereafter, she visited the office of the Board on a number of occasions. She requested the authorities to either refund the amount of Rs. 54,000/- paid by her or to give her possession of the house allotted to her. She even sent a notice. This was followed by a representation dated September 1, 1991 to the Chairman followed by another one sent by registered A. D. post in November, 1991. When she did not hear anything, she filed Civil Writ petition No. 200 of 1992 in this Court. A Division Bench of this court directed the respondents to decide the representations within 15 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. Vide order dated February 3, 1992, her representations were rejected, the allotment of Flat No. 291/1, Sector 45-A, was cancelled and the entire amount of Rs. 54,000/- paid by the petitioner was ordered to be forfeited under Regulation 6 (2) of the Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The provisions of Regulation 6 (2) and the order passed by the Chairman of the Board have been challenged as being wholly illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) THE petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit averring inter alia that the impugned order was passed without giving any notice and any opportunity of being heard to her.