Anil Kumar vs State Of U.T. Chandigarh & Ors

The petitioner has impugned the order dated 20.04.2017 (Annexure P-7), whereby the application of the petitioner for allotment of flat has been

rejected.

The respondent-Estate Officer, Chandigarh Housing Board vide letter dated 01.03.2013 had invited applications for allotment of flats under the

Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006. It is the case of the petitioner that he could not collect the Form A from the camp office for allotment of the

flat as he was in custody in FIR No.113 dated 18. 06.2007 under Sections 148/308 read with Section 149/302 IPC, Police Station Sector, Industrial

Area, Chandigarh.

The petitioner is stated to have been in custody from 19. 06.2007 to 16.07.2012. He had applied under the Scheme vide application dated

18.06.2015 (Annexure P-3). In pursuance to rejection of the application, he had filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat and the

Permanent Lok Adalat by the order dated 11.11.2016 observed that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the present application and instead the

petitioner could file an appeal before the competent authority. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Chief Executive Officer of

Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh on 16.03.2017. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by the order dated 20.04.2017, which is

impugned herein.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the petitioner was earlier in judicial custody, he could not prefer application for allotment of

flat and on his release, he had preferred an application, which should have been considered by the respondents. He has also contended that although

the petitioner had been released from jail on 16.07.2012 he could not prefer the application on

03.2013 as he was under mental stress at that time due to false implication in the FIR.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The applications had been invited by the respondents by the letter dated 01.03.2013. It was mentioned that Form A could be collected from the

Camp Office to enable the Estate Officer to verify the claim for allotment. The petitioner did not prefer the application at that time but only after a

period of more than 02 years, which has rightly been declined by the respondents being time barred.

The explanation of the petitioner that he had been involved in a criminal case and could not file the application, cannot be accepted as the petitioner

had been released from custody in the year 2012 and therefore, he could have filed the application in March, 2013 when the letter to this effect had

been issued by the Estate Officer. There is no material on record that the petitioner was suffering from any mental illness or was under treatment

after his discharge from custody which prevented him from tendering the application within time.

Consequently, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order rejecting the case of the petitioner for allotment of flat. The petition stands

dismissed.