SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(P&H) 1430

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jawahar Lal Gupta and K.S. Grewal, JJ.
Manjit Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 17550 of 1999.
Decided On : 22 November, 2000

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1: Ms. Palika Monga, A.A.G. Haryana.
For the Respondent No. 2 and 3:Mr. Ashutosh Mohunta, Advocate.

Violation of natural justice in the cancellation of allotment without granting any opportunity to the petitioner.

Headnote:

Natural Justice - Allotment Cancellation - The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the respondent authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was provisionally allotted a plot but failed to comply with the formalities, leading to the cancellation of the allotment. The petitioner approached the court, alleging violation of natural justice.

Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the respondent authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

Issues: Violation of natural justice in the cancellation of allotment without granting any opportunity to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the cancellation of allotment without granting any opportunity to the petitioner was violative of the principles of natural justice.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and disposed of the writ petition without costs.

JUDGMENT

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - The petitioner was provisionally allotted plot No. 91, Sector 59, Faridabad vide letter dated 23.4.1996. He was called upon to submit the drawing plans etc. He having failed to comply with the requisite formalities, the respondents proceeded to cancel the provisional allotment vide letter dated December 5, 1996. The petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed vide order dated June 3, 1998. His revision petition was dismissed on August 30, 1999. Aggrieved by the orders, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P4 to P6, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

2. Notice of motion was issued. A written statement has been filed. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the action of the respondents in cancelling the allotment without the grant of any opportunity whatsoever was violative of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Ashutosh Mohunta, appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3, accepts this position and states that the matter shall be decided afresh after hearing the petitioner.

4. In view of the fair stand taken on behalf of the respondents and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, we set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter to the respondent authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

Petition allowed.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top