BRIJINDER KUMAR Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has sought for the issuance of a writ of certioraris/mandamus quashing the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 29.9.1992, annexure P.7 with a further direction to the respondents to immediately consider, examine and include the name of the petitioner for the grant of flat/plot as per his entitlement as given to the members of Punjab State IPS Officers' House Building Society Limited.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that Punjab State IPS Officers' Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Chandigarh was formed in the year 1981. Petitioner was enrolled as members at serial No. 47 on 27.3.1989. To meet other requirements petition filed an affidavit showing his monthly income alongwith a certificate that he is residing in the Union Territory of Chandigarh for the last about 8 yeas and is an employee of the Central Government/State Government of Punjab and presently serving at Chandigarh. In addition thereto it was stated by the petitioner that he or his spouse or dependent children do not own any residential plot/house/flat/dwelling unit at Chandigarh, Panchkula or S.A.S. Nagar Mohali. Neither any one of these persons have been alloted any plot etc. nor they have availed under any Scheme formulated by Union Territory of Chandigarh. Since the petitioner had not received any letter intimating him as to the list of eligible members he wrote a letter seeking necessary clarification but ultimately was informed that his representation to be considered as member of the Cooperative House Building Society and entitlement to allotment of plot/dwelling unit etc. cannot be considred. This communication is annexure P-7 dated 29.9.1992. It is with a view to get this order annexure P-7 dated 29.9.1992 set aside/quashed and for further direction that he be alloted plot etc. according to his eligibility/seniority that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued by the Bench on 17.11.1992. A number of opportunities were granted to the respondents to file reply to the writ petition and on their failure to file the writ petition was ordered to be admitted on 23.8.1993. It was further directed by the Bench that the case be listed before the single Bench on October 4, 1993, in view of the urgency of the matter. Despite many opportunities granted by the Court and in spite of the fact that the present petition has remained on the board for a considerable time no reply has been filed by the respondents. Thus, it could be taken that the averments made by the petitioner are correct.