Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarabjit Kaur vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 14 January, 2011
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.663 of 2011
Date of Decision : January 14, 2011.
Sarabjit Kaur .....Petitioner
versus
The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Raj Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1.
Mr.C.M.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
Notice of motion.
Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr.C.M.Sharma, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3.
Let two copies each of the writ petition be supplied to learned counsel for the respondents during the course of day.
In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 15.11.2010 and 15.12.2010 (Annexures P-7 & P-7A respectively) passed by the Chairman C.W.P.No.663 of 2011 2 of the Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, whereby the reasons for enhancement of the prices of the MIG flats being constructed in Model Town Extension Part-I as well as the basis for determining their price, has been explained and justified. The above-stated speaking orders have been passed by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, pursuant to the directions earlier issued by this Court in CWP No.14054 of 2010 (Sarabjit Kaur versus State of Punjab and others) directing the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana to consider the petitioners' claim in the light of the order dated 10.3.2010 passed in Rajinder Kumar Gautam's case.
The petitioner is still aggrieved and has raised various contentions demonstrating that the enhanced reserve price of the MIG flats is exorbitant and unjustified.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner would not stricto sensu fall within the ambit of writ jurisdiction of this Court. The determination of price of a flat is essentially an administrative decision which rests upon various relevant factors to be kept in view by the Competent Authority who alone is well conversed and equipped with them.
However, the principles of just and reasonableness are expected to be uniformly followed as the basic yard-sticks for such determination by a public authority.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that let the writ petition itself be treated as a representation on behalf of the C.W.P.No.663 of 2011 3 petitioner against the fixation of the enhanced price of the MIG Flats and the Competent Authority is directed to consider the same in accordance with law/policy/rules, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Meanwhile, the petitioner would be required to deposit the due installments at the enhanced rate though without prejudice to her legal rights.
Dasti.
January 14, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE