Five years on, Punjab and Haryana high court brings smile on Kashmiri migrant’s face | punjab$chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Dec 14, 2017-Thursday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Five years on, Punjab and Haryana high court brings smile on Kashmiri migrant’s face

In June 2010, Matoo had filed an application for allotment of booth under a scheme for rehabilitation of Kashmiri migrants who left their homes due to unrest. He had been alloted the booth through a draw of lot.

punjab Updated: Jul 10, 2017 15:00 IST
HT Correspondent

A Kashmiri migrant, whose allotment of a booth for business purposes in Sector-11 was cancelled by the Chandigarh administration for delay in paying the requisite fee, has finally got relief from the Punjab and Haryana high court.

The high court bench of chief justice SJ Vazifdar and HS Sidhu has now directed the UT administration to allot the said booth to the petitioner Rattan Lal Matoo, who due to illness could not deposit the fee on time.

While quashing the UT’s booth cancellation order, the court observed that a practical and sympathetic view ought to have been taken by the authorities, especially considering the nature of the scheme and Matoo having undergone medical treatment during this period. The HC further held that the UT had powers to condone the delay in payment.

In June 2010, Matoo had filed an application for allotment of booth under a scheme for rehabilitation of Kashmiri migrants who left their homes due to unrest. He had been alloted the booth through a draw of lot.

However, soon after getting the allotment letter, he fell ill and remained admitted in a hospital in Jalandhar. Due to his ailment, Matoo could not follow up on the allotment. After a period of six months, he offered to pay the requisite amount of Rs 11,000. However, this plea was rejected by the UT administration.

The HC in this case also took note of similar prior instances where it was held that if a prayer for extension of time is bonafide, its rejection, for fear of creating precedents or problems in future, is in essence, a negation of the power conferred to extend time and condone delay.

In a 2011 judgment, a high court division bench had said that the rights of a party, if tenable, cannot be held hostage to administrative perceptions of creating precedents, or problems in future.