IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17232 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 28, 2010. Mr.Baldev Singh Ballamgarh and another .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present: Mr.A.C.Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate, for caveator-respondent No.4. -.- 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) The petitioners are the former M.L.A. and President of the Municipal Committee, Malout, District Muktsar respectively. They seek a writ of 'mandamus' for 'quashing' the selling of the immovable property belonging to Edward Ganj Public Welfare Association-respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 is on caveat. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The writ petition has been essentially filed in public interest on the ground that the petitioners and other residents of Malout are the “beneficiaries” of Edward Ganj Public Welfare Association and have got C.W.P.No .17232 of 2010 2 vested interest in its land measuring 8471 square yards which was put to auction for commercial purposes. From the submissions made during the course of hearing, it is revealed that respondent No.5 is a `public company' and it owns a piece of land measuring 8471 square yards. The company has entered into a tripartite agreement with the Punjab Urban Development Authority and the Red Cross Society, Muktsar, for development of the said land as a commercial market for which the public auction has been conducted after inviting the bids through public notices published in various newspapers including in 'The Tribune' (Annexure P-1). The petitioners are neither the share-holders nor have any concern whatsoever with the affairs of respondent No.5-Company. It is the positive case of respondent No.5 that the company has passed a resolution in accordance with law before entering into the tripartite agreement. On the repeated queries, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to show as to why the petitioners have got locus-standi to intermeddle in the affairs of respondent No.5. The only plea taken by their learned counsel is that the petitioners are the “beneficiaries” of respondent No.5-Edward Ganj Public Welfare Association and that the tripartite agreement has been entered into contrary to its Memorandum of Association. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and the petitioners have got some ulterior motive to jeopardize the `tripartite agreement' in question. The petitioners are strangers to the company and C.W.P.No .17232 of 2010 3 have no right whatsoever to interfere or intermeddle with its affairs. Dismissed. September 28, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE