U.T. CHANDIGARH Vs. PLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 09.09.2009 (P-4) passed by respondent No. 1

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 was a resident of Jhuggi No. 1243, Khumar colony, Sector 25, Chandigarh. In this Jhuggi, he was carrying out his business of selling meat. Chandigarh Administration framed the scheme namely "Licensing of Tenements and Sites and Services in Chandigarh Scheme, 1979 whereby the Chandigarh Administration taken up an intense programme of housing and rehabilitation of EWS of society in slum conditions in the labour colonies and other parts of Chandigarh by resettling them in low cost tenements and sites and services complexes so as to provide them better civil conditions and hygienic surrounding. Respondent No. 2 never applied under the said scheme. After repelling of this scheme, Chandigarh Administration framed another policy "Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006. In order to provide flats under the said scheme of 2006, Bio metric survey was conducted in March, 2006 wherein respondent No. 2 was also covered. Accordingly, he was provided flat No. P-876, Sector 52 Chandigarh. After getting this allotment, respondent No. 2 started making representation for allotment of some booth as well.

(3.) Thereafter, he approached respondent No. 1 for allotment of shop for his livelihood on a statement given by one Prem Kumar Masih, Sr. Assistant that the application of respondent No. 2 will be considered for allotment of site in accordance with law/rules. In view of the statement, learned Judge passed an order that in case the applicant/respondent No. 2 submits an application for allotment of site in lieu of hut within two months along with documents, Tehsildar (colonies) would consider the allotment of a site in accordance with law/rules. It was further directed that the Tehsildar would decide the application of the applicant within four months from its receipt. Thereafter, the applicant again approached respondent No. 1 for the desired relief on 25.05.2008.