1. V.K. Jain had filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the legality of an order dated 3rd February, 1971, passed by the learned Chief Commissioner of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. That writ petition was dismissed by us in limine. He has filed this application under Article 133 of the Constitution for a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. The applicant claims the certificate as a matter of right, because according to him the value of the subject-matter of dispute in the writ petition was more than Rs. 20,000/-.
2. One Dewan Sumer Nath had purchased in auction a site of a shop-cum-flat in Sector 19 for Rs. 12,500/-. Subsequently, he built thereon and also installed a Chakki (flour mill), which was worked by a 7 H.P. electric motor. Later he sold this property to Jatinder Kishore for Rs. 40,000/- and the latter then installed another Chakki with an electric motor of 50 H. P. and started working it in partnership with Mohan Lal. It appears that the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, issued a notice, both to Jatinder Kishore and Mohan Lal asking them to show cause why the site of the said shop-cum-flat be not resumed, because they were running a flour mill thereon against the terms of allotment. They made a representation against that notice and after hearing them, the Estate Officer came to the conclusion that they were being unnecessarily harassed. As a result, the said notice was withdrawn. Against that order, curiously enough, V. K. Jain, an owner of another shop-cum-flat, the present applicant, filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator. The said Officer, after hearing V. K. Jain, Jatinder Kishore and Mohan Lal, ordered the last two to adjust their machinery within 30 days, so as to conform to the conditions of the allotment order, failing which, the site would be deemed to have been resumed. Against that order, both Jatinder Kishore and Mohan Lal went in revision before the learned Chief Commissioner. This revision was accepted on February 3, 1971, and the order of the Chief Administrator was set aside. During the course of his order, the Commissioner observed:
'Respondent No. 2(V. K. Jain) was not a party to the proceedings initiated by the Estate officer against the petitioners (Jatinder Kishore and Mohan Lal). His Chakki is located on site Nos. 13/14 Sector 19/C, sufficiently removed from the site Nos. 19/20 Sector 19-C, where the Chakki installed by the petitioners is functioning. Respondent No. 2 was not, therefore, a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 10(2) of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, and could not agitate the matter in appeal before the Chief Administrator.'
3. Against the decision of the Chief Commissioner, V. K. Jain filed the writ petition, which we dismissed by our order dated 24th September, 1971, and against that, the applicant wants to go up in appeal to the Supreme Court.
4. The only question for decision is as to whether or not the value of the subject-matter of dispute in the writ petition was not less than Rs. 20,000/-.
5. From the facts stated above, it is not quite understandable as to what particular right the applicant had, which he wanted to be enforced by means of the writ petition. On being asked repeatedly, the learned counsel could only vaguely suggest that he had some sort of a right that the respondent, namely, Jatinder Kishore and Mohan Lal, might not use their premises in a manner, which was against the conditions of their allotment and by their so doing, his rights were being infringed and those rights he had valued at more than Rupees 20,000/-. As I have said, if the respondents were doing anything against the conditions of their allotment, the authorities to take notice thereof were the Estate Officer or his superior Officers. From what I have already mentioned, it is clear that the Chief Commissioner had ultimately held that the respondents were not guilty of any breach of those conditions and the notice originally issued to them by the Estate Officer was cancelled. In face of this decision, it is not understood as to what breach the respondents had committed and what rights the applicant had, which he was trying to enforce through the writ petition. It is further not clear as to how he was valuing the so-called rights at more than Rs. 20,000/-.
6. We are therefore, not at all satisfied that the value of the subject-matter of dispute in the writ petition was not less than Rs. 20,000/-. The application is, accordingly is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
7. Application dismissed.