Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Singh vs Greater Mohali Area Development ... on 27 January, 2012
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Civil Writ Petition No.8838 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.8838 of 2011
Date of decision: 27.1.2012
Harbhajan Singh ..Petitioner
Versus
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and others
..Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present:Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for the respondents.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J.
The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus/certiorari quashing order dated 11.4.2011 cancelling the allotment of his plot.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents invited applications for allotment of plots in `AEROCITY', SAS Nagar, Mohali. The petitioner applied for allotment of plot measuring 500 sq. yards under the sports category. The Civil Writ Petition No.8838 of 2011 2 petitioner's application was entertained and as the petitioner was successful in the draw of lots, his name figured at serial no. 146 in the draw of lots. The petitioner's allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 11.4.2011 on the ground that he had participated in the Common Wealth Youth Games, 2008 and not in the Common Wealth Games. Counsel for the petitioner submits that clause (xi) of the brochure does not draw any distinction between Common Wealth Youth Games and Common Wealth Games. The respondents have, therefore, erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for allotment. It is further argued that as there is no dispute that the petitioner is a bona fide sports person, who has earned a silver medal in Common Wealth Youth Games, 2008, the impugned order should be set aside and the respondents should be called upon to allot a plot to the petitioner.
Counsel for the respondents submits that reservation for sports persons is confined to medal winners of Asian, Common Wealth or Olympics Games. The petitioner, admittedly, is winner of a silver medal in Common Wealth Youth Games, 2008 and not in the Common Wealth Games. The respondents are fully justified in rejecting his application. It is further submitted that the mere fact that the petitioner's application was wrongly entertained and he was declared successful in the draw of lots, does not confer any right, as he is clearly ineligible.
Civil Writ Petition No.8838 of 2011 3
We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the brochure and the impugned order.
The respondents issued an advertisement inviting applications in AEROCITY, SAS Nagar, Mohali and provided 2% reservation for sports persons in the following terms:
"(ix) In case of the Sports Persons, the applicant should be Medal winner (for Gallantry Award winners) of Olympics, Common Wealth or Asian Games, Mountaineers who have scaled Mount Everest and possess the requisite certificate awarded by the Indian Mountaineers Foundations duly countersigned by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports Govt. of India."
A note appended beneath clause (xi) states that if at any stage, information submitted by the applicant is found to be false or incorrect, his/her allotment shall be liable to be cancelled and earnest money shall be forfeited.
The petitioner, admittedly, won a silver medal in Common Wealth Youth Games and not in the Common Wealth Games but still applied for allotment of a plot against the 2 per cent quota for sports persons. The petitioner was declared successful. However, when the petitioner appeared before the respondents and produced his certificates, the respondents withdrew the allotment made to the petitioner by holding that he had participated in the Common Wealth Youth Games and not in the Common Wealth Games.
Civil Writ Petition No.8838 of 2011 4
The petitioners' contention that as clause (xi) of the Brochure does not prohibit a Medalist in Common Wealth Youth Games, 2008 or draws any distinction between Common Wealth Games and Common Wealth Youth Games, the respondents have erred in rejecting the petitioner's application, cannot be accepted. The brochure uses the expression "Common Wealth Games", as opposed to Common Wealth Youth Games. The words "Common Wealth Games" appearing in Clause (xi) of the brochure have to be read in the context of the preceding words, i.e., `Olympics' and `Asian Games' and in our opinion would exclude any other games organised under the aegis of the Common Wealth. The expression "Common Wealth Games", is too well known to be misunderstood or misinterpreted to include Common Wealth Youth Games.
In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as the petitioner was clearly ineligible, we dismiss the writ petition. No orders as to costs.
( RAJIVE BHALLA )
JUDGE
27.1.2012 ( NARESH KUMAR SANGHI )
VK JUDGE