Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarlok Nath vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh And ... on 12 March, 2010
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal
CWP No.11797 of 2007 --1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 11797 of 2007
Date of decision : 12.3.2010
Tarlok Nath
...Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of Chandigarh and another
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
****
Present: Mr. Gurjit Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. K K Gupta, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 18.12.2006 (Annexure P-3) whereby his request for allotment of an alternative booth in place of Booth No.24, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh has been declined by the respondent-Administration.
A perusal of the writ petition shows that the ground which has been taken in the writ petition is discernible from para 8, wherein the petitioner has mentioned the names of some persons to show that they were given alternative booths and therefore, the order (Annexure P-3) declining the prayer of the petitioner for the identical relief is discriminatory.
CWP No.11797 of 2007 --2--
In response to the notice of motion issued by this Court, written statement has been filed wherein, it has been specifically mentioned in the preliminary objection that no discrimination has been made by the respondent-Administration inasmuch as no allotment of alternative booths has been made as alleged by the petitioner. The position as mentioned in para 8 of the writ petition has been explained in the preliminary objection as under:-
"PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:
That as the petitioner has made wrong statement of facts in the writ petition in order to claim relief, therefore, the writ petition deserves outright dismissal. As has been admitted in para No.2 of the writ petition, Booth No.24, Sector 7, Chandigarh was allotted in favour of the petitioner by draw of lots and therefore, there is no question of making any alternative allotment in exchange of Booth No.24. In order to make a case of alleged discrimination, the petitioner has cited the names of a number of allottees in para No.8 of the writ petition in whose case alternative booths were allotted which is factually incorrect. In fact, all those who have been named in para No.8 of the writ petition, were allotted booths by draw of lots in Sector 15, Chandigarh. As the said booths were found to be defective, therefore, the allotment of all those 22 booths was withdrawn and after seeking approval of the Finance Secretary, their names were again included in the next draw of lots of the remaining vacant booths and in the said draw of lots, they were allotted the other booths after withdrawal of the earlier allotments. So far as the case of CWP No.11797 of 2007 --3--
Gurdev singh mentioned at Sr.No.7 and 8 of Annexure P-5 is concerned, he was allotted the Booth in the draw of lots in the inner side of Rehri Market. Since he is handicapped and do not have both the legs, therefore, on compassionate grounds, his booth has been exchanged with a booth on the front side by an order of the Chief Administrator followed by the directions of this Hon'ble Court in a writ petition filed by him. Thus, in these cases also, the earlier allotment was withdrawn because the booths being found to be defective and the fresh allotment was made by draw of lots itself and not by simple exchange of booths as alleged by the petitioner. Since, the aforesaid allegation of discrimination is the only plea taken by the petitioner in the whole of the writ petition for allotment of alternative booth in exchange to the earlier allotment of Booth No.24, Sector 7, Chandigarh, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed specifically in view of the fact that there is no provsion for alternative allotment of booth in exchange to the earlier allotment under the rules. It is only the draw of lots which is the mode for allotment of the booths amongst the eligible licensees."
In view of the above, no ground for interference of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the impugned order (Annexure P-3) is made out.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
March 12, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) atulsethi JUDGE