The Court directed respondent authorities to consider allotting an alternative lease-hold booth to the petitioner, an ex-serviceman who lost his livelihood source when his booth was demolished in public interest, ensuring a decision within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.13629 of 2014 Date of Decision: November 20, 2015
Sahab Dayal Singh
....Petitioner
versus
Chief Administrator, Greater Area Mohali Development Authority and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.
Present: Mr.Sukhwinder Singh Sudan, Advocate, for Mr.Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashish Grover, Advocate, for the respondents.
-.-
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The petitioner is an ex-serviceman who served the Indian Air Force for about 21 years. He was allotted a booth on lease-hold basis in Phase-VII, Sector-61, SAS Nagar Mohali in the year 1993-94 to run STD/PCO. However, with the enforcement of new Telecom Policy, the business of STD/PCO became un-vible. The petitioner also shifted to the business of photostat.
[2] The said booth has been demolished by the respondent-authorities in the year 2014 in public interest as it was causing hindrance in to-and-fro movement of the customers of the Show-Rooms which were sold in public auction. The petitioner resultantly lost the source of his livelihood and being aggrieved has approached this Court.
[3] When this writ petition came up for preliminary hearing on 17.07.2014, we declined to entertain the
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.11.28 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.13629 of 2014
[2]
petitioner's claim for re-construction of booth as such a prayer would have been detrimental to the interest and convenience of general public. An individual's interest in such like situation must pave weigh for the larger public interest. However, we called upon the authorities to explore the possibility of allotting an alternative booth to the petitioner on lease-hold basis.
[5] Though the written statement filed by the respondents is silent in respect of existence of any Rehabilitation Policy for a lessee like the petitioner who was evicted as the subject-booth had to be demolished in public interest, none-the-less we find that the petitioner is an exserviceman and is surviving only on a meager amount of pension. There can possibly be no impediment against consideration of the petitioner's request for leasing-out some other booth in a functional commercial area to him, subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as may be determined by the Competent Authority. It shall be appreciated if the petitioner's claim is considered sympathetically and an appropriate decision is taken within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly. Dasti.
November 20, 2015 [HARI PAL VERMA] mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.11.28 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, an ex-serviceman with no alternative source of livelihood, can be accommodated in an alternative booth after his allocated lease-hold booth was demolished in public interest.
Whether the authorities are directed to consider the petitioner's request for an alternative booth sympathetically within a specific timeframe.
Sahab Dayal Singh
Chief Administrator, Greater Area Mohali Development Authority
Surya Kant
Hari Pal Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
