Allowed

Virinder Kumar v. Chandigarh Administration Thru Advisor etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2014CWP/13448/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition allowing the petitioner to seek allotment of a handcart booth after his father's death. Possession was granted as interim relief pending handover of the actual booth.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to seek allotment of the booth and granted interim possession of the allotted booth until actual possession of the booth is handed over.

Virinder Kumar Vs Chandigarh… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.13448 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.05.2014

¶4

¶5

Virinder Kumar . . . . Petitioner

¶6

VS.

¶7

Chandigarh Administration & Ors. . . . . Respondents

¶8

¶9

Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surya Kant Hon’ble Mr.Justice Mahavir Singh Chauhan

¶10

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Present: Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner

¶16

Mr. AP Setia, Advocate for respondents No.1&2

¶17

Mr. Sanjiv Pandit, Advocate and Mr. Balbir Kr. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3

¶18

¶19

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶20

(1) The father of the petitioner late Kimti Lal was having handcart licence issued in his favour by the Chandigarh Administration. Keeping that licence in view, booth No.108, Sector 46, Chandigarh was allotted but in the name of the petitioner (not in the name of his father), subject to a condition that the allotment letter shall be issued only when the handcart licence is transferred in his favour. Before the handcart licence could be transferred, petitioner’s father unfortunately passed away. The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner after the death of his father is entitled to seek allotment of the above-stated booth?

¶21

Vishal V 2014.05.23 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

��

¶23

�� ��

¶24

(2) Learned counsel for the respondents could not seriously controvert that somewhat similar controversy has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench in favour of the allottees like the petitioner in CWP No.22368 of 2010 (Prem Lata vs. Finance Secretary of Chandigarh Administration and others) decided on 21.02.2014 (Annexure P17).

¶25

(3) For the reasons mentioned in Prem Lata’s case (supra), the instant writ petition is also allowed in the same terms. (4) Till the possession of the allotted booth is handed over to him, the petitioner may be allowed to earn his livelihood. However, on delivery of possession of booth, the petitioner shall have to vacate and hand over the physical possession of the present site forthwith.

��

��

�� 

Vishal V 2014.05.23 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Virinder Kumar v. Chandigarh Administration Thru Advisor etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virinder Kumar v. Chandigarh Administration Thru Advisor etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurbakhsh Singh Vs Union of India &Ors

Sukhwinder Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Raj Kumar Jain etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Randhir Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Champu Lal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.