CWP No. 18007 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 18007 of 2009
Date of decision September 29, 2011
Baldev Singh and another
....... Petitioners
Versus
Union Territory, UT, Chandigarh and others
........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr.Amar Vivek , Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. A.P. Setia, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel,
Chandigarh Administration.
Mr. K. K. Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?No
2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest?No
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The petitioner challenges the order in Annexure P-
20 issued by the Managing Director of Chandigarh Child and Women
Development Corporation Ltd.,arrayed as second respondent cancelling
the accommodation made to the petitioners in the year 2002 at the Senior
Citizen’s Home. The basis for cancellation is that the petitioners have
defaced the government building by placing a balcony without obtaining
any written permission and that the petitioners had been away from the
home for more than 60 days without seeking permission from the
Managing Director justifying their decision. There is no dispute that there
had been procedural compliance by issuance of show cause notice before
CWP No. 18007 of 2009 2
the action was taken.
2. The only issue on the basis of which the case
requires consideration is whether there have been isolations of the
conditions under which the allotment had been made to the petitioners to
justify the impugned order.
3. Counsel for the petitioner refers me to clause (e)
General conditions obtaining under the Prospectus and rules and
regulations of the Senior Citizen’s Home.
1. The right of admission to the Home shall be
reserved by the Corporation. Admission shall be
allowed by interview by a Board appointed by the
Chairperson of Management Committee, Senior
Citizen’s Home, Sector 43, Chandigarh (Managing
Director, Chandigarh Child & Women Dev.,
Corporation).
2. The residents will observe the rules and
regulations of the Home.
3. The applicant may be called for interview at
his/her own expenses and can be asked to
produce additional documents, if the Board
considers it necessary. The Committee reserves
the right of admission and its decision shall be
final. Applicants will be informed of their selection
in writing and if they fail to occupy the
accommodation within the specified time, then it
will be treated as cancelled automatically.
4. The applicants are not allowed to change
their rooms unless prior written permission from
Resident Manager is obtained. Residents are also
not permitted to keep guests in their rooms.
5. The residents are not permitted, in their own
interest, to move on the roads and in Bazar on
account of danger of accidents from fast moving
traffic. In the event of any mishap, the risk and
responsibility would lie with residents concerned.
6. List of legal heirs and friends and relatives
CWP No. 18007 of 2009 3
with their addresses will have to be supplied at the
time of admission to whom residents want to
communicate and who can be informed in the
event of any emergency.
7. In the event of residents visiting their
relatives and friends, written information may be
left with the management, giving contact address
and phone number. They should also report on
return to the Resident Manager. In every such
case, they will leave the room key with the
Resident Manager. The Home Management will
in no way be responsible for their belongings in
the Home during their absence from the Home or
in any other case.
8. The Management Committee through its
Chairperson will have the powers to remove any
residents for failure to observe the rules or on any
other ground.
9. Each resident will be issued an identity
card.
10. The residents are expected to keep
cleanliness.”
4. According to him, the objective of setting up
Senior Citizen’s Home was to provide requisite facilities to the well off
senior citizens who were living alone and were in need of care and who
had capacity to pay for the services availed of to give them homely
atmosphere. The first petitioner is 83 years and second is 72 years and
there is no denial of the fact that the petitioners have their own property
interest. Whenever they have remained away they have paid the requisite
charges as prescribed and there was no regulation prevailing at that time
that the absence from the place itself would result in breach of rules and
give room for cancellation of the allotment.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that absence
CWP No. 18007 of 2009 4
for more than 60 days came as a condition subsequently. The relevant
clause (e) as stands amended through general condition which reads as
follows:-
“Any resident leaving the Home for less than one month
shall seek the permission from Resident Manager and
for one month or above upto 60 days from the Managing
Director justifying the absence. Any resident remains
away from the Home beyond a period of 60 days in that
case his admission is liable to be cancelled without any
intimation and the resident shall have to vacate the
room within 15 days failing which the Senior Citizens
Home authorities shall have full right to break open the
lock by the committee consisting of Resident Manager,
Project Officer and two residents, Sr. Citizens. The
belongings of the residents shall be shifted in store after
preparing inventory.”
6. This condition makes possible the administration
to revoke the allotment if a person stays away for more than 60 days. The
counsel for the petitioner, points out that these regulations came into effect
only from the year 2009 and the petitioner will be bound by these
regulations and any action could be taken if the conditions are breached.
Counsel for the respondents states that these amended regulations were
effective from 27.3.2008 itself. Although the printed book produced before
me by the counsel at the time of arguments makes reference to the rules
as effective from the year 2008 itself, I cannot give credence to the same
in view of the fact that to the specific averments made by the petitioner that
new regulations came into effect in the year 2009, there has been no denial
at all. At least, it cannot be seen that any of the inhabitants at the old home
were made aware of the said change of regulations before the year 2009.
7. We are not examining a situation of a misuse by
an undeserving person who owns property and who is well off and
therefore he should make way for some other deserving person in queue
CWP No. 18007 of 2009 5
who has not been accommodated I have already extracted the objective for
establishing this Senior Citizen’s Home that does not cast a relative affluent
status to be a disqualification. The only issue would be whether the
petitioner could be evicted for an alleged violation for the period when the
rules did not contain such a stipulation. Certainly that could not be. Learned
counsel for the State gives a detail of the number of days when they were
remaining absent for the year 2009,2010 and 2011. They will give
independent cause of action if there is any violation had taken place.
8. As regards the fact that some alterations in the
balcony and at the kitchen and that they are availing of services of some
person who manages the kitchen, I cannot see them circumstances which
have caused any serious prejudice to the Administration. The construction
could not have come in a day unless there has been some form of
acquiescence for the same. If they are in any prejudicial to the uniformity of
the building, the respondent shall be at liberty to secure the removal of any
addition which the petitioner has made for his own convenience at the cost
of the petitioners, provided further, they are not mere conveniences for old
people but involve serious building violation.
9. The impugned order of cancellation is quashed
reserving any independent action that may become possible for any
violation subsequent to the institution of the petition.
10. The writ petition is allowed subject to the liberty to
the respondents as aforesaid.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
September 29, 2011
archana