Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Must Read

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were...

Follow us

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the petition to be devoid of merit, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Facts of the Case

On 27th November 2019, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the Chandigarh Housing Board (Board) did not provide adequate services. Thus, the Redressal Commission passed an Order, stating the Housing Board to be at fault in the matter. 

Therefore, the Petitioner contended that the subsequent policy dated 19th December 2017 could not affect the rights of the Petitioner as he applied for transfer of ownership on 2nd June 2016. 

The present Writ petition of Mandamus is sought for directing Chairman of the Board to transfer the ownership of his Flat no. 231, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh under its GPA transfer policy at par with the cases which were transferred by the Board before 19th December 2017.

Petitioner’s Arguments

On 11th October 2011, the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited Vs State of Haryana and Anr held that the authority is under obligation to not disturb the ownership rights of those persons whose SA/GPA/Will transactions have been accepted by authorities. The Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Board missed the important aspects of the aforementioned Judgment. The Board did not cancel any transfer of ownership rights from 11th October 2011 and 19th December 2017. Further, the Board did not give any details to the Petitioner and also sought an unreasonable amount from him. In light of the above, the Petitioner did not deposit Rs 1, 99,944. 

Court’s Analysis

The Court observed that the prayer made by the Petitioner citing the Supreme Court judgment was misconceived. The Court stated that the Board is an entity of the Chandigarh Administration, which is empowered to make policy decisions. Since the Chandigarh Administration decided its policy on 19th December 2017, the Board was bound to implement it. Before that, there was no such decision and therefore, they did not impede with the Board not to transfer ownerships based on GPA/SA/Will. 

The Court further observed that the Petitioner could not be permitted to take a U-turn and in turn, challenge actions under the said policy. The Administration indeed complied with the Supreme Court judgment very late, however, this could not be used as the sole basis for permitting the Application of the Petitioner. Stating the above, the Court concluded that those dwelling owners who took the benefit of the policy existing before 19th December 2017 should not be put at disadvantage by turning the clock back. 

Court’s Decision

The Court held that no meaningful arguments were submitted by the Petitioner. The Court stated that the Petitioner was seeking relief under the very policy that was in existence, and thus, he could not take a U-turn and challenge the same. 

Stating it to be devoid of any merit, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Click here to read the judgment


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court : High Courts Have Sole Authority Under Article 226 To Decide Validity of Tax Provision, Even if Matter Is Sub-Judice Before Income...

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the validity of a provision is a serious matter which could only be decided by...

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected to act without any arbitrariness...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s property, without any legal sanction...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to the fact that they were...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were directed to consider the same....

Madras High Court Reiterates That ‘Ignorance of Law’ Is Not an Excuse and Dismisses Petition by a Constable

A Constable committed bigamy and deserted his service for more than 21 days. After dismissal from his service, he moved to Tamil Nadu Administrative...

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -