Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh Marble And Ors. vs Chandigarh Administration U.T. And ... on 14 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004)136PLR149
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar, J.S. Narang
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Thirty eight petitioners, who are carrying on the business of dealing in marble at the out skirts of the City Chandigarh have approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide alternative site for marble market at the subsidised rate. They further pray that the respondents be restrained from forcibly dispossessing the petitioners from the land in question till alternative sites are provided to them.
2. Vide order dated 8th July, 2003, a Division Bench of this Court had issued notice of motion to the respondents returnable on 11.7.2003. Thereafter, matter was listed before the Court on 11.8.2003 for arguments. After hearing the arguments the Court directed the learned counsel for the Chandigarh Administration to seek complete instructions and the case was adjourned to 12th August, 2003 on which date, learned counsel appearing for the Chandigarh Administration has placed on record the copy of the letter dated 11th August, 2003 relating to the controversy subject matter of the writ petition. The following is the relevant part of the said letter:
"I have been informed that the petitioners have posed a query through Hon'ble High Court as to which premises they can use for running their trade. The position is explained hereunder for submission in the Hon'ble Court:-
Sale of marble is included as "Building material at Sr. No. 90 of Sub-Category "Misc." of "New General Trade" (copy enclosed). This means cut pieces of marble in ready condition can be sold from any site allotted 'for general trade' or for any 'building material'. Sector 7, Chandigarh has a full market dealing in building material. All the booths/SCOs allotted for 'general trade' are also included. However, it is clarified that this does not include installation of the marble cutter which is manufacturing/processing thus of industrial nature and causes noise, nuisance and pollution. However, the latter activity can be carried out from the sites allotted in Industrial Area under the 'general' or 'building material' category after taking clearance from the Pollution Control Department. They can also get the site allotted in Ind. Area for this purpose. Further such traders dealing in bulk-material had been offered sites in Bulk Material market Section 39 to which they did not respond in Public auction. These sites are still available for public auction as per rules."
3. In view of the specific stand taken by the Chandigarh Administration that any person including the petitioners can carry the business of marble under 'New General Trade' in the markets or in industrial area, subject to compliance of other relevant laws, the petitioners cannot have any grievance.
4. In view of the above, it is not necessary for us to go into the details of the merits or otherwise of the contentions raised before us. However, we may notice that the very right of the petitioners to claim a relief in terms of their prayer is questionable aspect in law and facts. No notice has been served on the petitioners for forcible dispossession and they even do not have any cause of action. It was stated at the bar that the government has acquired the said land and is entitled to utilise its land as per its policy and in accordance with law. The petitioners have no vested right in the said land.
5. Industrial or other development for a planned city is the function being performed by the administration in discharge of its statutory obligation and social welfare policies. Such development normally should not be permitted to be hampered by avoidable impediments. Another aspect of the present writ is that the relief prayed for is Vague in its term and the Court would not exercise its jurisdiction to grant a relief which shall cause ambiguity, if granted, normally granting of such relief would be avoided by the court as it would violate the principle of 'nes nil trustura jubet'.
6. For the reasons afore-stated, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/-
J.S. Narang, J.