Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chaman Lal @ Chiman Lal vs Satish Kumar on 5 October, 2009
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No.1300 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 5.10.2009
Chaman Lal @ Chiman Lal ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Satish Kumar, DRM, and anr. ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. S.L. Chander Shekhar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the respondents.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
CM No.16203-CII of 2008 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.18899-CII of 2009 Respondents No.1 and 2 are present in Court.
Despite specific orders, respondent No.1 failed to present himself in Court on 19.8.2009 and therefore, his presence was secured through bailable warrants for today.
An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 wherein he has tendered unqualified apology for his failure to attend this Court on 19.8.2009. The said affidavit is taken on record. The unqualified apology tendered by respondent No.1 is accepted and his non- appearance before this Court on 19.8.2009 is condoned. COCP No.1300 of 2008
In the present case, the petitioner has alleged that the interim order dated 22.5.2008 passed in CWP No.8056 of 2007 directing the respondents to find out suitable method of adjusting the petitioner has not been complied with by the respondent.
COCP No.1300 of 2008 (O&M) -2-
In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, the respondents have filed written statement submitting therein that in pursuance of the order of this Court, the petitioner was allotted a shop site in the Railway Station Building, Amritsar measuring 2.44 x 3.66 sq.meters and as per the policy of the Government.
It is not in dispute that the present writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 4.5.2009 with a direction to the respondents to allot a shop to petitioner No.1 forthwith by suitably enhancing/revising the monthly rent of Rs.5/- which petitioner No.1 was paying since the year 1978.
Another affidavit dated 12.8.2009 was filed by respondent No.1 submitting therein that the shop site as per plan has been allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 11.8.2009. The aforesaid order along with site plan of the shop has also been placed on record along with this affidavit and it has been stated that the orders passed by this Court have been complied with.
However,learned counsel for the petitioner states that the rent payable by the petitioner as per the aforesaid allotment order dated 11.8.2009 is still excessive.
Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the respondents have allotted a shop to the petitioner as per policy applicable to the petitioner, I am not inclined to proceed further in this contempt petition.
Rule discharged.
However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek an appropriate remedy for redressal of his remaining grievances, if any.
October 5, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE