Chandigarh Booth Allotment Dispute: Supreme Court Grants Fresh Representation Opportunity

The case of Sheela Goyal & Ors. vs. Advisor to the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh & Ors. revolves around the cancellation of a booth allotment in Chandigarh and whether the appellant should be given a fresh opportunity to retain it. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining if the appellant, Sheela Goyal, was wrongfully deprived of her booth due to allegations of sub-letting and whether she should be given an opportunity to prove her eligibility for retention.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Sheela Goyal, was allotted a booth in Chandigarh. However, the authorities canceled the allotment on the grounds that she had violated the terms by sub-letting the booth to a third party. She approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which upheld the cancellation, leading her to appeal before the Supreme Court.

She argued that the booth was being run under her direct supervision and that any perceived violations were either misunderstandings or incorrect assessments by the authorities.

Legal Issues

The Supreme Court examined the following legal issues:

• Whether the cancellation of the booth allotment was justified.
• Whether the appellant should be given an opportunity to prove her compliance with allotment conditions.
• What procedure should be followed to ensure fair treatment to the appellant?

Arguments by the Petitioner (Sheela Goyal & Ors.)

The petitioners, represented by their counsel, argued:

• That the booth had not been sub-let but was being run under her ownership and management.
• That her husband, who originally operated the booth, had passed away in 2010, and she had since been managing it herself.
• That she should be granted an opportunity to present her case before the authorities and prove that she had not violated the conditions.

Arguments by the Respondent (Advisor to the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh)

The respondents countered with the following points:

• That the allotment conditions strictly prohibited sub-letting.
• That the authorities had found evidence of the booth being managed by a third party, violating the allotment agreement.
• That the appellant had failed to present any substantial evidence before lower forums proving her direct control over the booth.

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that Sheela Goyal should be given an opportunity to present her case before the Administrator. The key observations made by the Court were:

• The appellant should submit a fresh representation within two weeks, undertaking that she would personally operate the booth and would not sub-let it.
• The Administrator must consider the representation and provide an opportunity for Sheela Goyal to be heard.
• The appellant must appear before the Administrator and demonstrate that she will run the booth herself.
• Until the Administrator makes a decision, the status quo regarding possession of the booth should be maintained.

Observations of the Supreme Court

The Court stated:

“Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that Appellant No. 1 should be granted an opportunity for making a fresh representation, undertaking that she herself will be continuing the booth and will not sub-let it to anybody.”

Additionally, the Court ruled:

“Subject to the representation thus being filed before the Administrator, the same shall be considered by the Administrator after affording an opportunity of hearing to Appellant No. 1, who shall herself appear before the Administrator and satisfy him that the booth will be run by herself and that it will not be sub-let.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures procedural fairness in disputes involving property allotments. The decision emphasizes:

• The right of individuals to defend their property rights before authorities.
• The necessity for government bodies to provide an opportunity for hearings before taking adverse action.
• The balance between upholding allotment conditions and preventing unjust dispossession.

The judgment sets an important precedent for similar cases where authorities cancel property allotments based on alleged violations. It reaffirms that affected individuals must be given a fair chance to present their case before final action is taken.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sheela Goyal & Ors. vs Advisor to the Admin Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-08-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category