Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Kumar And Others vs Union Territory Administration ... on 20 March, 2013
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Amol Rattan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 6025 of 2013
Date of Decision:- 20.03.2013.
Vijay Kumar and others
.....Petitioners
Versus
Union Territory Administration Chandigarh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Present:-
Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
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 non- inclusion 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 C.W.P. No. 6025 of 2013 -2- 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.
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.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
20.03.2013 ( AMOL RATTAN SINGH )
reema JUDGE