High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Surinder Mohan & Ors v. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors - CWP-2956-2006  RD-P&H 1689 (16 March 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP NO.2956 OF 2006
DATE OF DECISION: 16.03.2006
Surinder Mohan and others ....Petitioners.
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
PRESENT: Mr.V.K. Jain, Sr.Advocate
(Mr. Parshant Vashisht, Advocate, with him) for the petitioners.
J.S. Khehar, J. (oral)
Petitioner No.1 was allotted booth site No.4, Sector 44-C&D, Chandigarh, in the year 1991. Its first instalment ought to have been paid in 1992, the second instalment a year thereafter, and the final instalment by 10.3.1994. Since the allottee Surinder Mohan i.e. petitioner No.1 did not pay any of the aforesaid instalments, he was issued a show cause notice under rule 12(3) of the Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, on 4.6.1992. Despite the aforesaid notice, petitioner No.1 neither paid the first instalment nor any of the other subsequent instalments. The Assistant Estate Officer acting on behalf of the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, afforded a number of opportunities so as to CWP NO.2956 OF 2006 2
allow petitioner No.1 to make payment of the instalments due. Eventually he passed an order dated 7.7.1997, after having afforded almost 30 opportunities, and after the lapse of almost five years, cancelling the allotment of the booth site made in favour of petitioner No.1. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assistant Estate Officer Surinder Mohan, petitioner No.1, preferred an appeal before the Chief Administrator, U.T.
Chandigarh. The Chief Administrator also afforded a number of opportunities to petitioner No.1, to make the remaining payment along with interest. Since nothing further was paid, the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, by his order dated 30.6.1998 dismissed the appeal preferred by petitioner No.1. Surinder Mohan, petitioner No.1, again challenged the order passed by the appellate authority by filing a revision petition. The Adviser to the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh dismissed the revision petition by an order dated 12.7.2000.
It is, therefore, apparent that by the order dated 12.7.2000 the allotment made in the name of Surinder Mohan, petitioner No.1, came to be cancelled finally, for all intents and purposes. Now that six years have elapsed thereafter, the petitioners, including Surinder Mohan, have preferred the instant writ petition, impugning the orders referred to hereinabove. It is not possible for us to accept the claim of the petitioners at the instant juncture, since the original allotment made in favour of petitioner No.1 came to be annulled in the year 2000, and the order dated 12.7.2000 passed by the revisional authority was not challenged in the interregnum. We find ourselves unable to entertain the instant writ petition in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the CWP NO.2956 OF 2006 3
Constitution of India, after an inordinate delay of more than five and a half years.
( J.S. Khehar )
( S.N. Aggarwal )
March 16, 2006. Judge
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.