Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Singh Aulakh vs State Of Punjab & Another) Decided On ... on 18 July, 2012
CWP No. 7878 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 7878 of 2012
Date of Decision: 18.07.2012
Gurcharan Singh Aulakh ............ Petitioner
V.
State of Punjab and others .......... Respondents
CORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
Present:- Mr. S.L. Chander Shekhar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sonika Kapadia, Senior Penal Counsel
for respondent No. 4.
Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate
for respondent No. 6.
Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No. 3
Mrs. Monika Chhibber Sharma, DAG. Punjab.
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner in this writ petition claims himself to be a victim of Anti-Sikh riots of 1984 and in recognition of he being such a victim, the competent authority has issued the 'red card' in his favour (Annexure P-1). The grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding, his undisputed status as an Anti-Sikh riot victim, the benefits flowing from several Government policies, especially dated 03.11.2008 (Annexure P-3), 29.09.2011(Annexure P-10), 16.01.2006 CWP No. 7878 of 2012 -2- (Annexure P-14) and 19.12.2011 (Annexure P-16) have not been granted to him. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court passed in CWP No. 16345 of 2009 (Kuljit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab & another) decided on 14.09.2010 (Annexure P-7), which was upheld by a Division Bench in a bunch of LPAs including LPA No. 260 of 2011 decided on 15.02.2011 (Annexure P-8).
Learned counsel representing Union of India, maintains that policy decisions have been taken by the Central Government on the recommendations of Nanawati Commission and the State Government is obligated to give effect and release benefits under such policies to the victims. That there are policy decisions on the subject, is indeed not disputed by the respondents.
The only question that survives consideration is whether the petitioner, who is admittedly an anti-Sikh riot-affected victim? and whether he is entitled to the allotment/regularization of the flat unauthorizedly occupied by him in terms of the policy decision referred to above?
In our considered view, the aforesaid issues being pure question of facts, it is obligatory upon the prescribed authority namely the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar to call for the records, give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, scrutinize his claim and determine whether or not he is entitled for the issuance of 'red card' or any other prescribed certificate. Suffice, it would be to say at this stage that if it is proved that the petitioner is a victim of anti-Sikh riots, the benefits flowing from different Central or State Governments policies, which have not been availed by the petitioner so far, shall have to be granted to him/his family.
CWP No. 7878 of 2012 -3-
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar to determine the petitioner's status in the light of the observations made hereinabove at the earliest and thereafter refer his case to the Amritsar Development Authority, if so required, for regularization of allotment of the above stated flat or any other flat, if acceptable to the petitioner. It shall be appreciated if the needful is done within a period of 4 months. Till then, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the flat in question.
Disposed of.
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE ( R.P. NAGRATH ) JUDGE July 18, 2012 jk