Dismissed

Muga Devi v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Feb 2012CWP/3310/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged orders declaring her ineligible for a hawker booth allotment because her husband's salary exceeded the total family income limit prescribed under the Chandigarh Rules 1991. The High Court held that the authorities were correct in disallowing the application and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the ineligibility order for booth allotment.

Muga Devi Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 3310 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 3310 of 2009 Date of decision: February 14, 2012

Mugha Devi

...Petitioner

Versus

Union Territory, Chandigarh and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)

¶14

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 18^th August, 2004 passed by the Estate Officer (Annexure P/6) and the order dated 12^th March, 2008 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Chief Administrator in appeal, whereby the petitioner was held ineligible for allotment of a booth.

¶15

The petitioner applied for a booth being a street hawker in terms of the Allotment/Transfer of Built up Booths in any Sector on Lease/Hire Purchase basis in Chandigarh Rules, 1991. The eligibility condition in terms of the said rules is as under:-

¶16

“ 5. Eligibility.- The Competent Authority may allot a built up

¶17

booth in the market in any sector to a person if:

¶18

CWP No. 3310 of 2009

¶19

¶20

[(a) he holds a valid hand cart licence or hawkers licence as well as a driving licence and owns a hand cart or a behngi/khoncha/phari on the date of issue of the notification or on the date as may be prescribed for the purpose by the competent authority.]

¶21

(b) he does not own a commercial site/shop in Union Territory of Chandigarh, Mohali or Panchkula in his own name or in the name of any member of his family dependent upon him and the total family income from all sources does not exceed [Rs. 7500/- per mensum (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only)] for which he shall have to furnish an affidavit duly attested by the Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh to this effect.

¶22

¶23

[Provided that in case any applicant, who after having submitted an application under this scheme and having been found eligible under this Scheme by the Competent Authority, dies before formal allotment letter is issued, all the legal heirs may be jointly entitled for allotment of booth under these rules.]

¶24

[5-A The Competent Authority may allot a built-up booth in the market in any Sector to:-

¶25

(a) such registered Kashmiri migrants as had been provided temporary sites for the sale of goods in Sector 20 and 22 and are recommended for allotment by the Deputy

¶26

CWP No. 3310 of 2009

¶27

¶28

Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh;

¶29

(b) such persons who were running shops and other commercial establishments along V-3 road dividing Sector 40 and 41 and in the vicinity thereof, and are recommended for allotment by the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chanidgarh.

¶30

¶31

The petitioner has filed an affidavit (Annexure P/3), wherein she has averred that her monthly income from all sources does not exceed Rs. 7500/-. It was found that, in fact, the husband of the petitioner is an employee of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and is drawing salary of Rs. 8385/- per month, which exceed the limit of total family income of Rs. 7500/- per month and thus the petitioner is ineligible for allotment of a booth. In view of the said fact, the Estate Officer declared the petitioner ineligible, which order was affirmed by the Administrator.

¶32

Keeping in view the eligibility conditions as notified, we do not find that there is any error in the orders passed by the authorities, which would warrant interference in this writ petition.

¶33

Dismissed.

¶34

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶35

(A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE

¶36

14.2.2012 prem

¶37

CWP No. 3310 of 2009 4

Muga Devi v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muga Devi v. Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harkesh Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dasa Singh Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Arshad @ Bugga Vs State of Haryana

Om Lata Vs Housing Board Haryana and Anr.

Sonia etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Karamveer Arya Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority