IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 16412 of 2006 in C.W.P. No.8963 of 2006 Date of decision September 28, 2006 Sukhwinder Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA Present:- Sh. S.L. Chander Shekhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. S.S. Brar, Additional Advocate General Punjab for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Sh. J. S. Toor, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** Viney Mittal, J (Oral) C.M. No. 16412 of 2006 The prayer made in the application is allowed. Written statement on behalf of respondent No.3 is taken on record. C.W.P. No.8963 of 2006 Reply by way of short affidavit of Kirandeep Singh Bhullar, IAS, Deputy Commissioner Amritsar on behalf of respondent Nos.1,2 and 4 has been filed in Court today and the same is taken on record. C.W.P. No.8963 of 2006 -2- The petitioner has approached this Court making a challenge to the auction which was to be held on June 5, 2006 with regard to the auction of a Shop-cum Office No.27 in District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid site was ear-marked for allotment of the same to a Sikh Migrant. The petitioner has made the aforesaid claim on the basis of a policy dated December 24, 1985 claiming that under the aforesaid policy, even commercial sites were liable to be reserved for Sikh migrants affected by 1984 riots. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents. In a short reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4, it has been maintained that the policy dated December 24, 1985 was no more in existence inasmuch as the said policy with regard to commercial properties stood withdrawn and stood modified vide subsequent policy dated January 13, 1993. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Improvement Trust, Amritsar-respondent No.3, a similar stand has been taken by the said respondent as well. Sh. S.L. Chander Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has however, relied upon the policy instructions dated March 6, 2006 to contend that the aforesaid policy instructions for allotment of commercial sites of persons affected by 1984 riots were still in existence. Sh. J. S. Toor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, informs the Court that the aforesaid policy only C.W.P. No.8963 of 2006 -3- relates to reservation to residential plots/houses and is not applicable to the case of commercial sites. In view of the fact that the policy on the basis of which the petitioner has raised his claim has already been withdrawn and is no more in existence, we find no merit in the present application. The same is accordingly dismissed. (VINEY MITTAL) JUDGE (H.S.BHALLA) JUDGE September 28, 2006 archana