IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : February 11, 2026 MALL SINGH -PETITIONER V/S UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

-RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Virat Rana, Advocate, and Mr. Mohd. Jameel, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jaivir S. Chandail, Addl. Standing Counsel, with Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Advocate for the respondents No.1, 3 and 4.

Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate for the respondent No.5.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant writ petition impugns the order dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure P-12) passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the allotment of House No. T-12/91, Sector 23, Chandigarh, made in favour of the petitioner, has been rescinded on the ground that the petitioner procured the allotment by furnishing incorrect and false information. Moreover, the impugned order renders the petitioner liable for payment of licence fee to the penal rent determined by the Government from time to time, for the duration of unauthorized possession of the house.

2. The concise and material facts engendering the instant writ petition are that the petitioner is serving as a Clerk in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh. Being eligible, he submitted an application dated

01.06.2022 to the Chief Secretary, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, seeking allotment of a residential accommodation from the U.T. Pool on medical grounds, namely on account of his father suffering from Dilated Cardiomyopathy. Pursuant thereto, the House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh Administration, vide order dated 05.04.2023, allotted the house in question to the petitioner, and he accordingly took possession thereof on 11.04.2023. Subsequently, on 15.04.2024, the respondent No.5, who is the petitioner’s wife and with whom petitioner has strained relations and a divorce petition is pending adjudication, submitted a complaint seeking cancellation of the petitioner’s allotment. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had procured the allotment by concealing the fact that his wife had already been allotted Government accommodation, and thus, in view of Rule 3 of the Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Allotment Rules”), the petitioner was ineligible for allotment from the U.T. Pool. Consequent thereto, the competent authority, Government of Punjab, issued show cause notices to the petitioner, to which he duly responded. Ultimately, on the recommendation of the Joint Secretary, General Administration, Government of Punjab, Department of General Administration (Administrative Officer-I), the impugned order came to be passed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the house in question was allotted to the petitioner on medical grounds, specifically on account of his father’s ailment, namely Dilated Cardiomyopathy. It is contended that there was no concealment or suppression of any material fact on the part of the petitioner at the time of seeking allotment of government accommodation, as the respondent No.5/petitioner’s wife had not been allotted any government accommodation at the relevant time. Furthermore, the attention of this Court is invited to the various litigations pending between the petitioner and his wife, including a divorce petition which is sub judice, to submit that the matrimonial relationship between the parties has deteriorated irretrievably, leaving no possibility of reconciliation or cohabitation under the same roof. Consequently, it is submitted that the allegation of concealment of material facts, forming the basis for cancellation of the allotment of the house in question, is wholly unsustainable inasmuch as the petitioner’s wife was allotted separate government accommodation vide allotment letter dated 14.02.2023, i.e.

subsequent to the petitioner’s application for allotment on medical grounds.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1, 3 and 4 s