JAI PARKASH BHARDWAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G . R. Majithia, S. K. Jain, J The petitioner has challenged the order of the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, dated August 16, 1983, resuming plot No. 160, Sector 26, Chandigarh, the appellate order of the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, dated April 30, 1990, and the revisional order passed by the Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, dated December 6, 1991, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India,

(2.) THE order of resumption says that the petitioner has made material changes in the building and thus violated the provisions of Rule 5 of the Building Rules. It is no more in dispute that the Chandigarh Administration vide order dated February 14, 1993, had decided to allow change of trade from godown to general trade, provided the owner of the godown makes payment @rs. 135/- per sq. yard as trade change charges. The petitioner applied for change of trade on October 6,1992 and his prayer was declined as before that, the order of resumption had been passed on account of raising construction in violation of the Building Rules.

(3.) APART from this, it is permissible, to allow change of trade from Godown to general. If the petitioner has purchased the plot for a godown, he can be permitted to change the trade provided he pays the requisite charges. He has not been allowed the change of trade because he submitted his application late. The claim of the petitioner should not have been rejected on technical grounds. If change of trade could be allowed on payment of trade charges, the same could not be disallowed merely because he submitted his application late. He also could not be denied the relief because resumption order had been issued. If the resumption order had been issued for making alterations in the building in violation of the Building By-laws and the construction made in violation of the Building By-laws could be compounded, there was no justification for refusing to compound the violations. In a welfare State, the authorities are expected not to act arbitrarily but fairly.