Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated 12.8.2009 (P -1); order dated 12.1.2010 (P -3) and the final orders dated 18.8.2010 (P -5) and 9.3.2011 (P -8) cancelling the lease of Booth No. 2 Rehri Market, Sector -9, Chandigarh for failure of the petitioner to execute a lease deed in terms of Rule 14 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 (for short the "1973 rules"). The facts are that the petitioner was allotted a built up commercial Booth No. 2 Rehri Market, Sector -9, Chandigarh on 5.5.2005 on lese hold basis for 99 years. The booth was one of several booths allotted to handcart/rehri licence holders operating in certain markets including the above market for decades in terms of a rehabilitation scheme floated for the purpose. The petitioner pleads that being an illiterate person he could not execute the lease deed in terms of the 1973 rules within the time specified. He is prepared to comply with the rule without demur if given a chance. Specifically in question in this petition is Rule 14 of the 1973 rules which reads as follows: 14. Execution of lease deed - (1) After payment of 25% premium (or such higher percentage as prescribed under rule 9(2)) the lessee shall execute a lease deed in form "B" or "C" as the case may be, in such manner as may be directed by the Estate Officer within six months of the date of allotment/auction or the such further period as the Estate officer may, for good and sufficient reasons allow. (2) If the lessee fails to execute a lease deed in accordance with sub -rule (1) of this rule, the Estate Officer may cancel the lease and forfeit a sum upto 25% of the premium: Provided that before taking action under sub -rule (2) of this rule the Estate Officer shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the lessee of being heard. (emphasis supplied)
(2.) SINCE Rule 14 (1) of 1973 rules requires a lease deed to be executed by an allottee with the U.T. Administration within six months of the date of allotment/auction, on failure of the petitioner to do so the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh passed an ex parte order dated 12.8.2009 cancelling the lease of the built up booth for failure to execute lease deed within the time prescribed citing the case as one of invocation of jurisdiction as a last resort. The 25% of premium paid by the petitioner towards premium of the site was ordered to be forfeited in terms of Rule 14(2) of the above quoted rule of the 1973 rules. Aggrieved by the ex parte order cancelling the lease, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh praying for setting aside of the order of the Estate Officer and for restoration of the booth inter alia on the ground it had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner had been condemned unheard. The Special Secretary Finance exercising the powers of Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, decided the appeal by order dated 12.1.2010 finding no ground to interfere in the impugned order but at the same time held that the action of cancellation of lease on the ground of non execution of lease deed is rather harsh action amounting to taking away the source of livelihood from the allottee. Since the petitioner was ready to execute lease deed, a lenient view was taken and an opportunity was granted to the allottee to execute the lease deed. A direction was issued to the appellant to execute lease deed within two months from the date of issue of order failing which the impugned order passed by the Estate Officer would become operative.
(3.) STILL aggrieved by the order of the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, the petitioner filed a revision under Rule 22 (4) of the 1973 rules impugning the order of forfeiture of 25% of the premium as being harsh and burdensome on a underprivileged Hawker/Rehriwala trying to eke out a living from the booth allotted under a scheme of rehabilitation. The Adviser to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, rejected the revision petition by order dated 18.8.2010 upholding the action as justified under Rule 14(2) of the 1973 rules.;