KANHAYA LAL Vs. HOUSE ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Kanhaya Lal-petitioner, who seeks the quashing of orders dated 11.3.1991 (Annexure P2) and dated 22.3.1991 (An-nexure P5) passed by the Secretary and Chairman, House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, respectively. Petitioner-Kanhaya Lal was working as a peon in the Animal Husbandry Department, Chandigarh, when he was allotted house No. 13-JE/2247, Sector 28-C, Chandigarh. The said allotment was made about 23 years prior to the filing of the writ petition, i.e. sometimes in the year 1968. The petitioner was later on transferred to the office of the Milk Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, which had its milk plant in the state of Punjab. Respondent No.2/Secretary, House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh, sent letter memo No. A-4/90 dated 11.3.1991, communicating the petitioner about the cancellation of the allotment of the house aforesaid with effect from 29.11.1983 by virtue of Section SR-317-AM-12(3) of the House Allotment Rules, as amended from time to time. The petitioner was advised to handover the possession of the premises aforesaid immediately to the maintenance authorities of the concerned sector, i.e. Sector 28-C, failing which he was to be dispossessed from the premises under the law. He was also asked to pay licence fee equal to market-rent determined by the Government from time to time for the period of unauthorised possession from the date of cancellation till the actual handing over of the vacant possession of the said premises. The copies of this letter were forwarded for information and necessary action to the Senior Accounts Officer (Rents) the S.D.E. Mtco. Sub-Divn. No. III and the L.A.O./S.D.M. (Estate Officer under the PP Act). Chandigarh with the request to start eviction proceedings against the petitioner to get the house aforesaid vacated. The Chairman, House Allotment Committee/respondent No.l passed order (Annexure P5) dated 22.3.1991, prescribing the rates of penal rent as also of the licence fee w.e.f. 13.1991 from all unauthorised occupants of the Government residences beyond the period permissible under the rules. This order was passed in suppression of the earlier office memo. No. A6/91/59-60 dated 12.3.1991. This order further mentioned that the said decision shall be applicable to those occupants of Government houses whose allotment is cancelled or deemed to have been cancelled under any of the provisions of Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration Pool Allotment) Rules, 1972. The Estate Officer passed order of eviction on 13.5.1991 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the same was delivered to the petitioner on 16.5.1991 . The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of eviction before the District Judge, Chandigarh. During the pendency of the said appeal, record of the Estate Officer was requisitioned and it was pointed out to the petitioner that the allotment of the aforesaid house had been cancelled by the Secretary, House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh, on the ground that the petitioner had permanently been absorbed in the service of Milk Project, Mohali. The petitioner denied the said fact and filed his affidavit dated 29.5.1992 in appeal before the District Judge. The petitioner deposed, inter alia, that he was never absorbed permanently or temporarily in the service of Milk Project, Mohali, which comes under Milk Union, Ropar, in the year 1983 or prior or after that, The copy of the affidavit aforesaid was annexed as PI with the writ petition. It has further been alleged that respondent No.3/Managing Director, Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producer Federation Limited, who is employer of the petitioner started deducting house rent from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.652/- per month with effect from May, 1991, whereas prior to the said date, the house rent was being deducted @ Rs.185/- per month. In support of his allegation, the petitioner annexed copies of salary slips for the month of April and May, 1991, as Annexures P3 and P4 respectively. On enquiry from the office of respondent No.3, petitioner learnt that the penal rent/licence fee equivalent to the market rent was being deducted from his salary as per the impugned order dated 27.3.1991 issued by respondent No.l, treating the petitioner as unauthoried occupant of the said house. The penal rent/licence fee is detailed in the order Annexure P5. A legal notice dated 4.6.1991 was served by the petitioner through his counsel, praying that the order charging penal rent @ Rs.652/- per month be withdrawn. The petitioner alleged that despite service of the legal notice, respondent No.3 was continuing to deduct the same from his* salary since May, 1991. The amount deducted from his salary towards the house rent at the penal rate, it is averred, is still lying with respondent No. 2 and has not been deposited with the Chandigarh Administration. The main contention of the petitioner while attacking the impugned orders is that these (Annexures P2 and P5) have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. It is alleged that respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment of the said house as the same was allotted to the petitioner by the House Allotment Committee, U.T. Chandigarh. It is further alleged that respondent No.2 could not cancel the allotment of the house with retrospective effect, i.e. with effect from 29.11.1983, which is illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) Respondents No.l and 2 filed a joint written statement, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was absorbed in the Punjab Diary Development Corporation (in short to be referred as "the PDDC") under the Milk Project, Chandigarh, w.e.f. 29.11.1983 permanently and the same is an in-eligible office. Therefore, the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of the Government house aforesaid from the date had been absorbed permanently in the said Corporation. It was mentioned that a notice of personal hearing was issued by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act to the petitioner prior to the passing of the order of eviction dated 13.5.1991. The respondents have further contended that the petitioner being an unauthorised occupant of the said house is liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.185/-pcr month, as per instructions dated 22.3.1991 issued by the Chandigarh Administration. It was further contended that the penal rent at the aforesaid rates of Rs.185/-and Rs.652/- has been charged rightly. The respondents have defended the impugned orders (Annexures P2 and P5) being legal, just, constitutional and in accordance with law on the grounds that no opportunity of hearing required to be given to the petitioner prior to the passing of the said orders. It was further alleged that as per Allotment Rules, 1972, the allotment of the house is deemed to have been cancelled w.e.f. the date the petitioner became unauthorised occupant of the house, w.e.f. 28.11.1983 when he was absorbed permanent in the PDDC and the allotment of the house was rightly cancelled by respondent No.2. It is further alleged that the order Annexure P5 has been issued by the competent authority in accordance with law.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents and have gone through the record.