High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Chandigarh Administration,Chandigarh and v. Yatinder Kumar. - RSA-3177-2006  RD-P&H 5202 (3 August 2006)
C.M.No.7711-C of 2006 and
R.S.A. No.3177 of 2006 (O.&M.)
Date of decision: 22.8.2006
Chandigarh Administration,Chandigarh and another.
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Grover
Present: Shri Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants.
C.M.No.7711-C of 2006 is allowed and delay in refiling of the appeal is condoned.
The appellants have filed this appeal assailing the judgments and decrees dated 12.10.2002 and 9.11.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh and District Judge, Chandigarh, respectively.
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction praying therein that the defendants (now appellants) be restrained from re- allocating built-up booth no.131,Rehri Market, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh to any other person and they be also directed to hand over the possession of the same to him. He averred that he is a hawker by profession and was eking out his livelihood by selling electrical items from a hand-cart in Rehri Market, Near Luxmi Narain Mandir, Sector 20, Chandigarh since 1991. A fire broke out in the RehriMarket on 4.6.1994, as a result of which the entire market was gutted. He received a compensation of Rs.3000/- and so did the other similarly situated persons. The appellants shifted the Rehri Market to the back-side of Luxmi Narain Mandir and built up pucca booths at the previous site. The respondent was also one of the applicants for the booths and had furnished an affidavit declaring his income to be not more than Rs.2500/- per month as per the requirement. A complaint was filed against the respondent saying that his income was more than Rs.2500/- per month. A vigilance enquiry was held against him for filing a false affidavit.
In the enquiry, no finding adverse to him could be recorded and his affidavit was held to be correct. Despite that, the appellants did not grant him the booth which led to the filing of the suit.
The trial Court decreed the suit and the lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by it and it was held that the respondent was entitled to a booth as it was established that his affidavit was correct and he did not have income of more than Rs.2500/- per month.
Against the above pure and simple finding of fact, the appellants have chosen to file the present appeal.
A perusal of the record shows that there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. The respondent lost his livelihood in a fire and was entitled to a booth in order to enable him to start his life afresh, but due to wanton and deliberate inaction on the part of the appellants, he has been deprived of his right to earn his livelihood.
There is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen in the present appeal, the filing of which is an abuse of the public money.
Once the appellants through an enquiry had come to a conclusion that the income of the respondent was not more than Rs.2500/- per month and the complaint was false, the logical corollary to that would have been the granting of a booth to him. Instead, the appellants have chosen to litigate further. In view of this, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The booth in question shall be allotted to the respondent forthwith within a period of one month from today.
August 22,2006 ( Mahesh Grover )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.