Kumari Neelam vs Chandigarh Administration and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioner impugns Annexure P-6. The grievance of the petitioner is based upon facts. She was allotted a Government accommodation bearing H.No. 2341/A in Sector 20-C, Chandigarh. In the very same building, there is another house 2341/1 on the ground floor which she opted for. According to the petitioner she opted for this house which was allotted to her but the same was not in a condition which would befit occupation. Therefore, within one week of its allotment she offered to surrender the said house and sent a communication to the Secretary, House Allotment Committee disclosing her intention on 13.8.2009. It is the positive case of the petitioner that she has surrendered the house but the report of its vacation was not given to her by the Works Inspector as he demanded illegal gratification for the same. Respondents have denied this in entirety and have said that the petitioner was in occupation of the house which was allotted to her at her request and she continued to retain the earlier house as well. The case of the petitioner was decided by the allotment committee in November, 2009 (Annexure P-6) which is the order impugned penalizing the petitioner to pay rent at the rate of 20 times the lincence fee per month as determined by the Government from time to time.

Heard. The petitioner faces a constraint of highly disputed questions of fact involved in the petition i.e. as to whether the petitioner surrendered premises on August, 2009 as she claims and which fact is denied by the respondents. The respondent has also filed an affidavit of Anil Kumar Sharma, Sub Divisional Engineer (Maintenance) dated 5.7.2010 giving details of the requests made by the petitioner for getting repairs carried out in H.No. 2341/1 which requests continued to come till 27.4.2010 and which repairs were carried out as per the requests made by her. The petitioner has however denied this by filing another counter affidavit on 9.5.2011.

Evidently as observed by this Court earlier there is a serious dispute on facts which cannot be determined in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the instant petition is dismissed leaving the petitioner with liberty to avail herself of any remedy available to her under the law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is willing to pay the normal rent in case the respondents permit her to do so. Noticing the prayer of the petitioner, the Court deems it appropriate to observe that in case the respondents feel that the matter can be adequately settled by charging the normal rate of rent instead of one imposed by virtue of impugned order (Annexure P-6) they would be at liberty to take a decision, unfettered by the dismissal of the instant petition.