CWP No. 11643 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 11643 of 2008 Date of decision 30.10.2008 Ashwani ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG Haryana. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing public notice dated 1.7.2008 ( Annexure P.2) whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal- respondent no.3 has invited the interested persons for auction for the site of photo stat machine in the Mini Secretariat, Sector 12, Karnal opposite the main market. When the matter came up for consideration on 9.7.2008 the Division Bench had directed that respondent may continue with the auction which was scheduled to be held on 10.7.2008 but the same was not to be finalised. The principal ground of challenge is that the afore-mentioned site is unauthorised as it does not find mention in the original lay out plan. In the written statement filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal- respondent no.3 it has been stated that according to the District Administration Manual facilities of Canteen, Form Shop, Photostat, PCO CWP No. 11643 of 2008 2 and Cycle Stand etc. has to be furnished to the public at large. Respondent no.3 has quoted Kutuchery Compound Fund Rules, 1987 (for brevity, 'the Rules') in support of their assertion. It has further been asserted that the instant petition is an abuse of the process of the Court with a view to grab the public money. It has been clarified that the petitioner himself in the year 2007-08 has taken the Photostat and Form counter on lease. He is alleged to have withheld the payment of Rs. 15,500/- which is balance amount of Photostat lease on the completion of financial year 2007-08 resulting in initiation of legal action against him ( annexure R/1). The respondent is recovering the amount as per law. It has also been highlighted that the petitioner runs a photostat shop in the show room which is just opposite to the Mini Secretariat whereas the Administration has to provide the facility of photostat to the public at large at cheap rates as thousands of people visit the offices and Court daily which are adjacent to the Mini Secretariat. The booth is a temporary structure to provide facilities in accordance with the Administration Manual. Respondent no.3 has also taken the stand that a communication has already been addressed to the Chief Administrator, Haryana to earmark space for common facilities ( Annexure R./2). It has further been pointed out that the petitioner could have participated in the auction. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered opinion that the instant petition is bereft of any merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. It may be true that there is no earmarked site for a booth to sell forms and provide facility of Photostat to large number of litigants and visitors to the Mini Secretariat as well as Civil Courts, which are also situated nearby. A temporary booth appears to have been provided by CWP No. 11643 of 2008 3 respondent No. 3 for making such a facility available. According to Rule 3 of the Rules in the month of March every year a date has to be notified for the lease of Kutchery Compound shops and to be re-auctioned by an officer not below the rank of an Extra Assistant Commissioner for a period of one year. The rules were framed in 1987 and facility for providing a Photostat machine has to be read into it. Therefore, the step taken by administration is in larger public interest and does not violate any rule or provision of any law. In any case the petitioner is fully eligible to compete and may be found suitable. Moreover, we find that the petitioner has no locus standi because his effort appears to be that his business of similar nature being transacted nearby the compound should not suffer. There is well known phrase known as damnum sine injuria which means that there may be an injury inflicted without any act of injustice or violation of legal right. The maxim was applied in England in the famous case of Gloucestershire Grammar School (1410) Y.B. ii Hen 4, to 47 Pl 21; 36 Digest (Repl) 252 where in competition another school was opened. The claim made by the previous school was rejected because opening of a new school did not infringe any of his legal right. The afore- mentioned prnciples have also been applied by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed (1976) 1 SCC 671. Merely becase the petitioner has a photostat shop outside the Mini Sectt. does not debar respondent no.3 to open another photostat shop by inviting applications. Moreover, the petitioner himself had been doing the same business in the temporary booth set up by respondent no.3. We find that it would advance the public interest by providing facility which is otherwise obligatory on the administration. CWP No. 11643 of 2008 4 The plea that there is no earmarked space and the booth is unautorised cannot be accepted because the temporary structure in the facts and circumstances of the case for installing photostat machine is not impermissible nor any provision has been quoted in that regard. Such an argument cannot be raised by the petitioner especially when he himself has been running his photostat machine and Form Counter from the same site. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the afore-mentioned plea raised by the petitioner. For the reasons mentioned above this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jora Singh) 30.10.2008 Judge okg