Writ interference barred where allotment was cancelled after due process and a stranger could not challenge resumption.

A writ court should not interfere with cancellation and resumption of an allotment where the original allottees remained in default, were given repeated opportunities and due notice, and still failed to clear auction dues. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's Article 226 intervention was unwarranted because the statutory orders had been passed after due process and the challenge was belated. It also held that an alleged tenant had no locus standi to contest the resumption without proving a legally enforceable tenancy or other cognizable interest, and no separate notice was required to be served on it. The cancellation and resumption orders were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the orders cancelling the allotment and resuming the plot for non-payment of auction dues; (ii) whether the alleged tenant had locus standi to challenge the resumption orders and whether any notice to it was necessary.

Issue (i): whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the orders cancelling the allotment and resuming the plot for non-payment of auction dues.

Analysis: The original allottees had defaulted in payment of the balance 75% premium and were afforded repeated opportunities, including a show-cause notice under Rule 12(3) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973. Their lease was cancelled after due process, and the appellate authority granted a final opportunity to retain the site by clearing dues, which was not availed. The revisional challenge was also rejected as time-barred. In these circumstances, the High Court ought not to have upset the statutory orders in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The interference by the High Court was unwarranted and the challenge to the cancellation and resumption orders fails.

Issue (ii): whether the alleged tenant had locus standi to challenge the resumption orders and whether any notice to it was necessary.

Analysis: No document was produced to establish any tenancy in favour of the alleged tenant, and the record did not show that it had any legally cognizable interest requiring independent notice. The reliance on the meaning of "transferee" under clause (k) of Section 2 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 did not assist it on the facts, since it was not shown to be a tenant or transferee of the original allottees. The litigation was treated as a proxy challenge on behalf of the defaulting allottees.

Conclusion: The alleged tenant had no locus standi, and no separate notice was required to be served on it.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions should not have been allowed, the impugned High Court order could not be sustained, and the statutory cancellation and resumption orders stand restored in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court should not interfere with a resumption or cancellation order passed after due process where the allottee remains in default and the challenge is belated, and a stranger to the allotment cannot invoke writ jurisdiction without proving a legally enforceable interest.

---