SURESH KUMAR Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh has issued letter dated 22.7.2014 in terms of which a built-up booth has been allotted to the petitioner on lease hold basis. Challenge in the instant writ petition is confined to clause 2 of the allotment letter dated 22.7.2014 (Annexure P- 10), whereby the total premium i.e. Cost of land as also cost of structure has been fixed as Rs.43,65,181/-.

(2.) Brief facts that may be noticed are that father of the petitioner Sh. Ram Chander was running a small time business at Rehri Parking Site No.86 in Rehri Market, Sector 22, Chandigarh against a Hand Cart License No.974, issued by the Chandigarh Administration. Father of the petitioner expired on 27.2.2005. Petitioner applied for transfer of Hand Cart License in his favour and in support of such request submitted all the requisite and supporting documents. Inspections were carried out under the instructions of the duly constituted Screening Committee and the petitioner was found to be a genuine Rehri Worker. Accordingly, as per policy framed by the administration for allotment of built-up booth in respect of registered Hand Cart/Hawker License Holders, name of the petitioner was included in a draw of lots held on 29.4.2010 and in which he was declared successful.

(3.) Formal allotment letter of the built-up booth was not issued in favour of the petitioner on account of a complaint dated 21.5.2010 having been lodged jointly by one Smt. Seema, Shambhu Nath and Ashok Kumar alleging that the petitioner was not eligible for such allotment as he was already owning a 10 marla industrial plot in Timber Market, Phase XI, Mohali. This led to the initiation of a verification process, whereby the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, respondent no.3 issued a number of letters to the Administrator, PUDA, Mohali as also Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA). Vide memo dated 25.3.2013 the Superintendent, GMADA informed respondent no.3 that as per records there is no property in the name of the petitioner. Respondent no.3 vide memo dated 18.6.2013 called upon the petitioner to submit a liability affidavit and indemnity bond to the effect that there is no commercial property/10 marla plot allotted in his name or in the name of any family member in Chandigarh, Mohali and Panchkula. The requisite documents were furnished without any delay. Vide communication dated 25.11.2013, respondent no.3 called upon the petitioner to submit yet another affidavit in the form of an undertaking that if any commercial/industrial property is found to be owned by him or in the name of any family member, the same would lead to cancellation of the proposed allotment of the built-up booth. Even such affidavit and undertaking was duly furnished.