RAMESH KUMAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A writ in the nature of certiorari is prayed for to quash the decision of the Screening Committee, constituted by the Chandigarh Administration, dated 07.07.1997 (Annexure P10), vide which it declined to recommend the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a booth; memo dated 17.06.1997 (Annexure P11) conveying the said decision; order dated 28.12.1998 (Annexure P13), whereby, even on a re-consideration, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Estate Officer; as also the order of the Chief Administrator, UT, Chandigarh, dated 07.01.2000 (Annexure P14), vide which even the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the rejection of his claim was dismissed being not maintainable.

(2.) In brief, the case set out by the petitioner is that on 11.03.1987 (Annexure P1), he was issued a licence for a hand cart (Rehri), by the Licensing Officer, UT, Chandigarh. Consequently, the petitioner was also allotted a site No.42 in Rehri Market, Sector 20D, Chandigarh. Petitioner set up a tea stall at the allotted site and continued to run the same. He has regularly been depositing the registration and licence fee with the Administration. The Chandigarh Administration, for allotment/transfer of built up booths to a valid hand cart licence holder, enacted a set of rules known as "Allotment/Transfer of Built up Booths in any Sector on Lease/Hire Purchase basis in Chandigarh Rules, 1991" (for short, '1991 Rules'), which were notified on 07.03.1991. Petitioner was even issued a provisional identity card by the Chandigarh Administration on 04.03.1991 (Annexure P2) for allotment of booth. And vide letter dated 14.03.1991 (Annexure P7), issued by the Licensing Officer, under Hand Cart Bye Laws, petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- as earnest money for allotment of booth, which he deposited. With a purpose to ascertain the genuineness of the claim of the applicants and to verify whether they indeed were operating from the allotted sites in the Rehri Market, a survey was conducted by the Administration on 08.08.1991. The case being set up by the petitioner is that owing to his ill-health he could not be present during the spot inspection on 08.08.1991. Resultantly, his name was not included in the list of eligible applicants. However, vide application dated 13.04.1994 (Annexure P9), petitioner represented to the Licensing Authority to include his name for allotment. And, during a subsequent survey that was carried out on 13.12.1995, petitioner was found present at site and he even signed the survey register. Though, his name was reflected at serial No.33 in the record of the survey staff, but still he was termed as ineligible for allotment. Vide memo dated 19.12.1995, a Screening Committee was constituted by the Administration for scrutiny of claims and determining the eligibility of the applicants. And, vide its recommendations dated 07.07.1997 (Annexure P10), even the Screening Committee declined to recommend the claim of the petitioner for allotment. Petitioner was conveyed the said decision by the Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh (respondent No.3), vide memo dated 17.06.1997 (Annexure P11). Appeal preferred by the petitioner, assailing the decision of the Screening Committee, was dismissed by the Chief Administrator (respondent No.2), vide order dated 10.10.1997 (Annexure P12), being not maintainable. However, drawing a sympathetic view, respondent No.2 still directed the Estate Officer to re-examine the claim of the petitioner to avert any injustice. But, even on a re-consideration, the petitioner was not found eligible for allotment. And claim of the petitioner was again rejected vide order dated 28.12.1998 (Annexure P13). The conclusion arrived at reads as thus:

(3.) Once again, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, which was dismissed being not maintainable, one more time, vide order dated 07.01.2000 (Annexure P14). This is how, as indicated above, the petitioner is before this court.