Disposed

Vijay Kumar & Ors. v. Ut Administration Chandigarh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2013CWP/6025/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging denial of booth allotment in Sector 37, Chandigarh. Court disposed of writ petition by permitting a representation and directing authorities to decide it within a month via a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a representation; directed Union Territory Administration to consider the representation and decide by passing a speaking order expeditiously if filed within a month.

Vijay Kumar & Ors. Vs Ut Administration… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.W.P. No. 6025 of 2013 Date of Decision:- 20.03.2013.

¶3

Vijay Kumar and others

¶4

.....Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Territory Administration Chandigarh and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

¶9

Present:Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

¶11

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

¶12

In the instant petition the petitioners are claiming allotment of built up booths under Allotment/Transfer of Built up Booths in any Sector on Lease/Hire Purchase basis in Chandigarh Rules 1991, in Sector 37, Chandigarh on the ground that they are having valid hawker licences and are running their business in the rehri market Sector 37-D, Chandigarh since 1991. It is not disputed that in the year 2008 the applications of the petitioners for allotment of those booths were considered but they were not allotted the booths as their names did not find mention in the list of eligible and selected candidates who were lateron allotted the booths. It is further admitted position that the petitioners did not challenged the rejection of their applications or noninclusion of their names in the list of candidates who were lateron allotted the built-up booths. However, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter with regard to allotment of remaining built up booths is still under consideration before the Administration, therefore, the petitioners

¶13

C.W.P. No. 6025 of 2013 -2-

¶14

may be permitted to file a representation for considering their claim and the respondents may also be directed to dispose of the said representation in accordance with law.

¶15

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to make a representation with regard to their claim before respondent No. 2-Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh and if any such representation is filed within a month, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order expeditiously.

¶16

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 20.03.2013 ( AMOL RATTAN SINGH ) reema JUDGE

Vijay Kumar & Ors. v. Ut Administration Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar & Ors. v. Ut Administration Chandigarh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. R. Wadhawan and Ors. Vs Chandigarh Adminstration through Its Administrator, U. T. Chandigarh and Ors.

Mahipal and Ors. Vs HUDA and Ors.

Pankaj Khemka Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurtej Singh Vs HUDA & Anr.

Dlf Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Chander Bhushan Jaiswal and Anr. Vs Haryana State Industries Dev. Corp. Ltd.