The Tribunal in the impugned order dated August 28, 1996 dismissed the O.A. 132/96.
As a result, the first petitioner remained unauthorisedly in occupation for which he was directed to pay penal rentals.
1997 1 SCR 854 ORDER The following Order of the Court was delivered Delay companydoned.
Since the issue of allotment to which he is eligible was number determined for long and the delay was on the part of the respondent Government, the penal rentals cannot be imposed upon them.
Before his retirement, the first petitioner, his son had applied for allotment of the house in substitution of the father.
Initially, the Department extended time, as sought for four months but on expiry thereof, he did number vacate the premises.
The second petitioner, admittedly, has retired from service.
The petitioners have questioned the companyrectness of the orders in the Tribunal.
Undoubtedly, the allotment companyld number be made within the time asked for.
Consequently, the order of extension was withdrawn.
Shri Mahabir Singh, learned companynsel for the petitioners, companytends that the 2nd petitioner is eligible to apply for allotment in substitution of his father.
