JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THESE two petitions raise a common question - Is the action of the respondent-Board in ordering the cancellation of allotment of Flat Nos. 3898 and 3898/1, Section 47-D, Chandigarh, vide orders dated 11.4.2000 vitiated as an opportunity of personal hearing was not offered to the petitioners ?
(2.) A few facts on which there is no dispute may be briefly noticed. The petitioners are husband and wife. In June, 1976, the petitioners submitted two applications for the allotment of flats to the Chandigarh Housing Board. They had also requested that the flats may be allotted on the ground and upper floors in one unit. After the draw of lots, the petitioners were called upon to file affidavits that they or their relations had not filed any application for the allotment of a residential flat or house in Chandigarh, Mohali or Panchkula. On 11.2.1980, both the petitioners filed affidavits stating, inter alia, that "I or my wife/husband .... had applied for a residential flat/house ..... and have surrendered the said residential flat/house as per terms of the allotment letter of dwelling unit by the Housing Board Chandigarh." After the filing of these affidavits, the possession of the two flats was taken by the petitioners on 25.2.1980. Thereafter, they paid monthly instalments. On 8.6.1992 both filed applications for issue of 'No Dues Certificates'. On 22.11.1994, the petitioners were served with notices to show cause as to why the allotments be not cancelled. It was, inter alia, alleged that at the time of the submission of the applications, they had furnished false information in the application forms and made false declarations in the affidavits dated 11.2.1980. It was pointed out that the two petitioners were married to each other. Despite that, they had kept back this information and given information which was false to their knowledge. In fact, a deliberate attempt had been made to mislead the Board by giving different permanent and correspondence addresses. The petitioner Ravinder Kaur did not even disclose the name of her husband in the application form or in the affidavit. She actually mentioned the name of her father.
(3.) THE petitioners submitted separate replies to the show cause notices. These were considered and, finally, the impugned orders were passed. A copy of the order passed against the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 8839 of 2000 is at Annexure P-5 with the writ petition.;