ORDER
1. The petitioners in these bunch of writ petitions are the employees of the Punjab Government, working in different offices at Chandigarh. There are certain houses in Chandigarh, which are in the pool of the Punjab Government, for allotment to its employees, for which Punjab Govenment Houses (General Pool), Allotment Rules, 1983, (for short ‘the Rules’), have been framed, and the allotments are guided and governed by these Rules. Rule 18 thereof indicates the consequences of breach of rules and conditions of allotment and one of the conditions is that if an allottee sub-lets the allotted house, the allotment would be cancelled by the House Allotment Committee.
2. A complaint was received that large number of allottees had sub-let the premises, on which enquiry was made and it came to light that as many as 46 persons had sub-let the premises. The name of each of the subtenant was also mentioned, copy of this annexure is RIII/T. After the receipt of the report, the 46 occupants, who had contravened the rules were given show cause notices and on receipt of the reply, the matter was considered and the allotment was cancelled. Out of the 46 such persons, 35 vacated the premises, and out of the remaining 11 persons, 5 have come to this Court, in writ petitions Nos. 6975, 6976, 6878, 6987 and 7548 of 1987, to impugn the order of cancellation on two grounds : one that the Rule 18 of the Rules is ultra vires as no procedure is prescribed therein for taking proceedings for cancellation of the allotment and the second that cyclostyled order was passed and there was no application of mind by the concerned authority. Since common question is involved in all the five writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on consideration of the matter, we are of the view that there is no merit in the two points raised. As regards the vires, the Rule is clear and contains enough guidelines that in case it is found that there is breach of the Rules or conditions of allotment, the House Allotment Committee has the authority to cancel the same. It is true that specific procedure for cancellation is not provided but it is inherent that the principles of natural justice have to be followed and that is why after report of sub-letting was received show cause notices were given to each of the defaulting persons and after obtaining the explanation orders were passed. Hence, we are satisfied that Rule is not arbitrary and gives enough guidance for taking proceedings. The first point is therefore rejected.
4. Adverting to the second point, since 46 such cases came up for consideration, in which point involved was common regarding sub-letting, and therefore all other matters were similar except the number of the house and the name of the sub-tenant. After issuing initial notices and obtaining explanation, the Competent Authority under the Rules considered the matter in detail and formed the opinion that the explanation was not satisfactory and relying on the report, ordered the eviction. Each of the petitioners was told as to who was the sub-tenant, and the reply furnished was of bare denial. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no application of mind. On the peculiar facts of the case, the issuing of cyclostyled order after filling the necessary columns relating to each of the petitioners, regarding the number of the house and the name of the sub-tenant, cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous. The second point is also rejected.
5. As a result, all these petitions are dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.