Gurjinder Singh And Others vs. The Chandigarh Administration Chandigarh And Others

Facts

The petitioners, Gurjinder Singh and others, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.09.2023. They contended that their claim was not properly considered, an exorbitant rent with 24% interest and 18% GST was imposed without justification, and they were denied an opportunity of hearing, contrary to a previous direction from the High Court in CWP-19838-2023. They sought to prevent the respondents from taking possession, cancelling allotments, or taking any coercive action. The respondents, specifically respondents No. 2 to 4 (Municipal Corporation), stated that they had reduced the interest on rent from 24% to 10%, extended the payment period to 31.12.2024, and waived rent for the Covid period, rendering the petition infructuous. The petitioners acknowledged these concessions but indicated surviving grievances.

Held

The High Court disposed of the petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation detailing their grievances before respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, within two weeks. The Court directed respondent No. 2 to decide this representation in accordance with law within four weeks from its filing, after hearing the petitioners. This approach effectively addressed the petitioners' plea for a proper hearing and consideration of their remaining issues, while acknowledging the concessions made by the respondents. The Court did not explicitly rule on the validity of the impugned order or the specific charges, opting instead for a procedural resolution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 18.09.2023, which allegedly failed to consider the petitioners' claim properly, imposed exorbitant rent with unjustified interest and GST, and denied an opportunity of hearing, is liable to be quashed, particularly in light of the High Court's previous directions in CWP-19838-2023? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the impugned order was passed without proper consideration of their background, imposed unjustified charges, and violated principles of natural justice by denying a hearing, despite prior court directives. They sought liberty to file a fresh representation and for it to be decided expeditiously. Respondents' Contention: The respondents (Municipal Corporation) argued that concessions, including reduced interest rates, extended payment deadlines, and waiver of Covid-period rent, had been granted, making the petition infructuous. They did not explicitly address the procedural fairness or the specific charges in their initial response.