C.W.P. No.15919 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.15919 of 2010 Date of Decision.17.10.2011 Maya Rani Dass widow of Sh. Jayatin Chander Dass resident of Manu Tyres, near Prince Furniture, Dhulkoot Station Road, Ambala City. .....Petitioner Versus The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Rehabilitation, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Bishnoi, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate for respondent No.5. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The migrants from Bangladesh, who were housed in Mahila Ashram Karnal were directed to be rehabilitated by the policy of the Government of India and initially, it appears that a loan of Rs.4,90,000/- had been issued to the Government of Haryana for allowing for rehabilitation to a stated number of persons and set out in the schedule. The assistance is in the nature of loan for housing at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per family and another Rs.5,000/- for establishing small trade or business. The housing loans are distinct from shop-cum-residence or C.W.P. No.15919 of 2010 -2- small trade-cum-business loan and these loans have been issued to persons, who were identified in Annexure-1 to the communication dated 07.03.1984 of the Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation (Department of Rehabilitation) to the Secretary to Government of Haryana. Subsequently an additional grant has been made to an extent of Rs.8,96,000/- to another 41 families for business loan and housing loan of Rs.9,000/- each to 13 families. Housing-cum-business premises loans had been identified as payable to 41 families described in Annexure-1. Admittedly, the petitioner did not figure in the list given originally. 2. The petitioner claimed a similar benefit by means of writ petition and it appears that this Court passed an order dated 10.01.2007 directing the authorities to consider the grievance since the action had not been taken. The petitioner appears to have filed yet another petition in C.W.P. No.4297 of 2007 and the Court had directed that appropriate action will be taken on the basis of his representation as ordered by the Court already. The representation was later taken up and the authority had found that he should be favoured with appropriate assistance. On the basis of the instructions received from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, additional four families had been identified as eligible for financial assistance/loan @ Rs.9,000/- per family staying in the Karnal house. Apart from financial assistance, the Government of Haryana acting to the District Social Welfare Officer has informed the petitioner of an allotment of plot No.1128 in Sector 16, Karnal. The State has filed a reply and has also produced proof of a possession certificate issued by the Junior Engineer, office of the Estate Officer making over the property in favour of the petitioner in the year C.W.P. No.15919 of 2010 -3- 2008. In the matter of grant of State largesse, the State Government could not have been expected to do anything more than what was provided by the Union. If the Union has pursuant to a direction from the Court taken a decision to make the financial assistance of Rs.9,000/- to the petitioner apart from handing over a plot or residential plot, it shall not be possible for the petitioner to plead anything more than what the policy admits of. I cannot accede to the plea of the petitioner that apart from a housing plot and a financial assistance of Rs.9,000/-, there should also be required to give some assistance for establishing a business for him. What was possible through a policy spelt out in the year 1984 cannot be stretched this long to allow for periodical demands coming from various quarters. If the Government has taken a decision to grant the benefit in the manner referred to above, I would take that to be sufficient and will find no scope for a judicial intervention. The relief granted already to the petitioner would be taken as appropriate and no fresh directions will be passed. 3. The writ petition is disposed of on the above directions. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 17, 2011 Pankaj*