IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9292 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 13 , 2011. Amrik Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Munish Jolly, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Monika Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.H.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No4. -.- 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.Monika Chhibbar Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and on the asking of the Court, Mr.H.S.Brar, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.4. 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 petitioners seek quashing of the Circular-cum-notice dated 8.4.2010 (Annexure P-8) issued by the GAMADA to the extent of C.W.P.No .9292 of 2010 2 fixing of reserved price of Rs.10.05 lacs for allotment of booth sites in Sector-77, S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali to the victims of 1984 anti Sikh Riots. The grievance of the petitioners is that the above stated price has been fixed on a very higher side without following any procedure whatsoever. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the determination of price of the booth sites is a matter of policy which exclusively falls within the domain of the respondents. At the same time, the petitioners though might be under an obligation to deposit the sale price as demanded by the competent authority, yet they are entitled to know as to how the said price has been determined when the allotments are statedly to be made on concessional rates. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 to intimate the petitioners as to how the above stated price of the booth sites has been fixed. The intimation shall be sent to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioners shall be required to deposit the sale price as per the schedule fixed by the respondents though without prejudice to their rights to challenge the same before an appropriate forum. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. January 13, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE