Arbitrary action defeated benevolent policy, HC raps UT over booth allotment
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped the Chandigarh Administration for defeating a benevolent policy’s object following capricious, unfair and “bureaucratic adventurism” in a booth allotment matter.
The censure came as Justice Kuldeep Tiwari directed the Administration to allot a booth to the petitioner, running an auto electrician’s business since 1987, at the rate existing at the time of his application.
“It is a classic case where the object of benevolent policy adopted by the State was defeated on account of an arbitrary, unreasonableness and bureaucratic adventurism,” Justice Tiwari asserted.
The court held that the petitioner was wrongly denied his rightful claim “on a flimsy ground”. Despite establishing his claim through legal procedures, he was subjected to an “attempt to deprive the fruit ripped through the legal procedure while raising the unreasonable demand by the respondents”.
Going into the background of the matter, the court observed that the petitioner had applied for allotment of a booth under The Allotment of Sites on Lease-Hold Basis to Auto Spare Part Dealers and Auto Repair Mechanics in Chandigarh Scheme, 1999, after his name appeared in the survey conducted in 1997. Despite fulfilling eligibility criteria, his application was rejected in 2006 by the screening committee, prompting him to move Permanent Lok Adalat.
The order in his favor was then contested by the Administration, but the High Court dismissed their challenge in 2009.
The court added the Administration in 2012 offered a booth for Rs 26,34,528, with a demand for Rs. 2,63,452 as an upfront 10 per cent payment. The petitioner challenged the demand, following which and an Additional District Judge held that he was entitled to the rate applicable at the time of filing the application.
The Estate Officer, instead of allotting the plot to the petitioner at the old rate, took refuse under instructions issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in 2012 before justifying the demand raised earlier.
The court in the latest observation asserted it was nowhere on record that the delay in allotment was on account of the petitioner’s fault. Rather it was the Estate Officer, who erroneously and illegally declined the rightful claim.
“It is always expected that the holder of the public power and authority must be able to justify their action as legally valid and just. If the procedure adopted by the authority concerned, is not reasonable, the end cannot be declared as just. The respondent adopted all means to deny the rightful claims to the petitioner, which cannot be justified at any cost,” Justice Tiwari asserted.
Before parting with the order, the court added, “The respondents concerned are directed to allot a booth to the present petitioner at the rate existed at the time of application, within a reasonable time.”
