JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) The petitioner was allotted a site for a 3 bays building in Sector 17, Chandigarh. Vide order dated July 16, 1980, the lease was cancelled primarily on the ground that it had made partitions in violation of the Rules. A part of the money paid by the petitioner was also ordered to be forfeited. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P.7. The petitioner filed an appeal. Vide order dated April 20, 1982, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.11, the appeal was dismissed. He filed a revision petition. It was dismissed vide order dated October 27, 1988. A copy of the order has been produced as Annexure P.13. Aggrieved by the three orders, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.
(2.) The petitioner alleges that the action of the respondent-authorities suffers from the vice of discrimination. The petitioner has committed no violations. In any case, similar constructions raised by different site owners have been allowed by the Administration. There is no ground to treat the petitioner differently. Secondly, it has also been alleged that the order is contrary to the statutory provisions. It is the claim of the petitioner that the various pleas raised by it had not been considered. Thus, the petitioner prays that the impugned orders be quashed.
(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent. The name and the designation of the officer who has filed the written statement has not been mentioned. However, it has been inter alia averred that "no one is allowed to construct pucca partitions inside the building unless the permission is granted by the Chief Administrator of Chandigarh. The petitioner without prior permission of the Chief Administrator made pucca partition in the shop........" A "show window was converted into a sale booth and mazzanine floor was also constructed by two tenants of the petitioner........." Thus, a notice under Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 was issued to the petitioner on March 13, 1979 by the Assistant Estate Officer. Thereafter, a notice under Rule 20 of the Chandigarh Lease hold of Site Building Rules, 1973 was issued on March 13, 1980. The petitioner sent his reply on March 17, 1980 and again on May 12, 1980. The Administration was not satisfied. Thus, the Assistant Estate Officer passed the order dated July 16, 1980 by which the lease was cancelled. It has been admitted that the appeal and the revision petition were dismissed. In reply to the petitioner's allegation regarding discrimination, it has been mentioned that "the case of SCO No. 52-52-54 Section 17-C does not help the petitioner in this case. The owner of this SCO constructed the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Similarly, owner of SCO No. 89-91 Section 17-D also constructed the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan". It has been further admitted that "building plan of these two buildings were sanctioned with some partitions" (emphasis supplied). The petitioner raised the partitions "without getting the plan sanctioned from the competent authority". It has been further averred that the petitioner had submitted the plan with partitions for sanction. However, he was not permitted. Later on, he had submitted a modified plan which was sanctioned. According to the respondent, the making of partitions was violative of the rules and, thus, the impugned orders were validly passed.;