IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.3803 of 2009
Date of decision: 14th October, 2009
Shera Khanna
... Petitioner
Versus
Chandigarh Administration and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Jatinderjit Kaur, Advocate for the respondents.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was licensed
by the Chandigarh Administration to carry on the business of fruit-vendor
in Sabzi Mandi, Sector 26, Chandigarh. Learned counsel submits that
initially Som Nath, father of the petitioner, was granted hand-cart license
No.957, having registration No.2567. His father expired on 6th September,
1991 and in accordance with the provisions of law, the license was
transferred in the name of the petitioner, as he was duly recognized as
legal heir of Som Nath.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure P-5, the
license, which has been transferred on his name. Counsel submits that in
the end of year 2006, a survey was conducted by the Chandigarh
Administration for allotment of Booths. In the survey, on the Rehri of the
petitioner, one Tarlok was found present and on this score, petitioner was
held not entitled to allotment of the Booth. Learned counsel submits that
vide Annexure P-6, his claim for allotment of built-up Booth was rejected
Civil Writ Petitions No.3803 of 2009 2
on the ground that the Screening Committee had scrutinized the same
and found that the petitioner has given the Rehri to one Tarlok on rent and
he himself is doing some other work. Counsel further submits that subject
mentioned on communication (Annexure P-6) reveals that the same was
only confined to allotment of built-up Booth, but the Estate Officer, Union
Territory, Chandigarh suo-motu has also cancelled the license and
registration of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that for
cancellation of the license and registration, he was required to be heard. It
has been urged that in the present petition, petitioner will confine his
prayer only qua setting aside the order of cancellation of license and
registration and he will not pursue his claim for allotment of built-up Booth.
The order (Annexure P-6) was challenged in appeal. The
Appellate Authority held that the order cancelling the lease of Booth or its
allotment is not an appealable order.
After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that a
show cause notice ought to have been served upon the petitioner for
cancellation of license and registration, and due opportunity of hearing
ought to have been granted to the petitioner. Since, the authority has not
done the needful, therefore, the order cancelling the license and
registration of Rehri of the petitioner is set aside and order of non-
allotment of built-up Booth is upheld. However, the authorities shall be at
liberty to cancel the license and registration of Rehri of the petitioner, if
necessary, by following due procedure, in accordance with provisions of
law.
With these observations, present petition is disposed of.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
October 14, 2009
rps