JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. Shri Sohan Singh, petitioner, has filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing order Annexure P. 1 vide which allotment of the petitioner was cancelled with regard to Low Income category house. The petitioner has further prayed that writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents and they be directed to allot a dwelling unit at Chandigarh against his right which accrued to his wife S winder Kaur.
2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :-
Smt. Svvinder Kaur wife of the petitioner applied to
the Chandigarh Housing Board for allotment of a
quarter under Low Income category in the month
of January, 1978. Lots were drawn for the allot-
ment of quarters and wife of the petitioner was
one of the successful allottees in the draw of lots which took place on 29.6.1985. Unfortunate for the petitioner, his wife expired on 20.2.1987. According to the petitioner Sohan Singh, no letter of allotment was received by Smt. Swinder Kaur during her life time or after her death. On 10.5.1995, he received letter intimating that Smt. Swinder Kaur was allotted a dwelling unit No. 3079/1 in Sector 45-D, Chandigarh vide allotment letter No. 914 dated 29.8.1995 and the said house has been cancelled under clause 19 of the allotment letter dated 17.11.1985 dueto non-payment of the demanded amount as well as required documents. The petitioner in response to the letter dated 10.5.1995 wrote to the Chief Accounts Officer, Chandigarh Housing Board and made a detailed representation stating therein that no intimation was received by his wife during her life lime or after her death. On 2.8.1995, petitioner again made request to the authorities that a dwelling unit be allotted to him and he is ready to pay the price and other charges required by the respondents. On 12.9.1995, the petitioner met respondent No. I and made another representation on the same terms. Sp-much-so, the petitioner even met Member Parliament Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal who also recommended his case to respondent No. 1 but no action was taken. The Member Parliament wrote D.O. letter pointing out that the allotment letter was wrongly addressed. It was sent at the address of Sector 41 instead of Sector 47.
3. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents who filed written statement denying the allegations of the petitioner. According to the respondents the wife of Ihe petitioner filed option form on 16.8.1984 in which she gave her correspondence address of House No. 606, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh. Further grouse of the respondent is that correspondence was done in the name of the wife of the petitioner at the latest address and thereafter public notice was published in the newspaper. The letter was also sent in the name of the wife of the petitioner at the permanent address which was supplied to the respondent in the application form.
4. We have heard learned counsel for me parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.
5. It is admitted stand of the respondent-authorities that the house was allotted in the name of Swinder Kaur. We have examined the documents specifically Annexures R.1 and R.3. A perusal of Annexure R.1 would show that Swinder Kaur gave her address as House No. 606, Sector 47-A, Chandigarh. Further stand of the respondent authorities is that earlier address was of Sector 41 -A and it has been changed to Sector 47-A on 15.6.1995. The endorsement made on Annexure R.1 (photo copy) is not signed by Swinder Kaur. Even otherwise, it does not stand to reason why
Swinder Kaur would change her address to Sector 47-A. Every body in the normal circumstances knows where he or she resides. In these circumstances, the intimation ought to have been sent to the petitioner at the address of Sector 47. Rather the cancellation letter was sent at the address of House No. 606, Sector 47-A instead of Sector 41-A. Annexure P.1 is the letter dated 10.5.1995 vide which allotment was cancelled. Intimation has been sent at Sector 47 address meaning thereby that first intimation has been wrongly sent at Sector 41 address. The petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer for the fault of the department. Even as per Annexure R.3, clause No. 20, wife of the petitioner was obliged to inform about the change of the address within fifteen days. In this case, there was no change because the wife of the petitioner gave address of Sector 47. It is not clear from document whether there was any house No. 606 in Sector 41 -A, Chandigarh at that time.
6. When this writ was pending before us, a query was put to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents whether there is any house in the Low Income Category for accommodating the petitioner in case he succeeds. We have been intimated that three Houses No. 3023/1, 3091/1 and 3204/1 in Sector 45, Chandigarh are lying vacant and one out of these three can be allotted to the petitioner in case his claim succeeds. Since we have held above that there was no proper intimation to the wife of the petitioner, therefore, we allow this wril petition and quash the order of cancellation and directed the respondent authorities to allot House No. 3024/1, Sector 45, Chandigarh to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions as envisaged in the allotment letter issued in the name of the wife of the petitioner. If the area of House No. 3024/1 is more as compared to the house which was earlier allotted to the wife of the petitioner, then the respondent authorities can claim excess proportionate amount from the petitioner. No order as to costs.
7. Petition allowed.
