IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** CWP NO. 2174 OF 2007 DATE OF DECISION: August 22, 2008. *** Traders and Property Owners Association Versus State of Punjab and others. *** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, CJ and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant. *** Present: Shri S.P.Jain, Sr.Advocate, with Shri Dheeraj Jain, advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Amol Rattan Singh, Additional AG, Punjab, with Ms. Sonu Chahal, DAG, Punjab. Shri Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Shri Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Shri A.R.Takkar, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Shri V.K.jain, Sr.Advocate, with Shri A.P.Jain, Advocate, for respondents No. 7 to 14. *** T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral) This petition purports to have been filed in public interest. It prays for a Mandamus directing the respondents to take necessary action for ensuring that Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana is maintained as per the lay-out plan and action is taken against all such car dealers as have started a car bazar in the parking area of the said market. A prohibition restraining the car dealers from running the business of sale and purchase of cars in the Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana has also been prayed for. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner-association to an order dated May 22, -2- CWP NO. 2174 OF 2007 2006 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5692 of 2003. The said petition was also filed by the petitioner-association and made the same grievance as is sought to be made in the present proceedings. Petitioner-association had even in that petition complained that Feroze Gandhi Market in Ludhiana has choked because of the car bazar, which the car dealers and other traders had started running in the said market. Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondents to the said petition. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the administration would not allow the car bazar to run in the market area in question, except on Sundays. This Court had also noticed the argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner-association that if the car bazar was allowed to run on Sundays, there would be a possibility of the concession being misused and the bazar getting filled with other un-authorized vehicles also. This Court had rejected that submission and observed that there was no such possibility in view of the statement made by the respondents and the given liberty to the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner / Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, who would then take appropriate action in the matter. The Court also recorded the assurance given by Shri Arun Palli, counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana that no cars would be allowed to be parked in the main bazar and that there would be no impediment for people using the market for genuine purpose. The Court had eventually disposed of writ petition with directions in the following words:- “We are of the opinion, however, that in view of the report aforementioned that only 20 vehicles were found parked in the premises of the Car Bazar, it could not be said that the Car Bazar was still functioning. Mr. Arun Palli, the learned counsel for the Administration assures us that no Car Bazaar would be allowed to function from this area except on Sundays. -3- CWP NO. 2174 OF 2007 Mr. S.P.Jain, the learned Senior Counsel, has however, expressed his apprehension that if the Car Bazars are allowed to function on Sundays, there is every possibility that this concession would be misused and the Bazars will be filled with other un-authorized vehicles also. Although we find no such possibility in view of the understanding given by the respondents that if the apprehension of misuser are found to be correct, the petitioner may approach the Deputy Commissioner/Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, who shall assure appropriate action. It has also been argued by some of the counsel that as the entire area had been barricaded, the parking area had been greatly reduced leading to congestion as there had been a huge increase in the number of vehicles using the parking area. Mr. Arun Palli assures us, however, that no cars would be allowed to be parked in the main Bazar and that there would be no impediment to the persons using the market for genuine purpose. Mr. Jain has also argued that by allowing the Bazar to continue, a huge traffic hazard had been created and it would, thus, be appropriate to shift it to some other venue. We are of the view that in this regard the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana should be requested to see if the sites for holding of all Car Bazars can be regulated and shifted to proper places convenient to all. The writ petition is disposed of in the above -4- CWP NO. 2174 OF 2007 terms. Sd-/ H.S.Bedi, Acting Chief Justice. Sd/- Ranjit Singh, May 22, 2006. Judge” it is evident from the above that the grievance of the petitioners has already been redressed by the above directions issued by this Court It is all the same contended on behalf of the petitioner that the car bazar continues to function and that the shop-keepers who are running their shops in the market are facing inconvenience on that count. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar, we see no reason to take a view different from the one taken by this Court in the previous writ petition nor are we inclined to issue any further direction as the earlier directions issued by this Court appear to be providing a complete answer to the grievance of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Ludhiana had suggested five alternative sites to which the car bazar could be shifted. Our attention in that regard was drawn to the affidavit filed by Shri Paramjit Singh Virk, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Ludhiana. Shri Amol Rattan Singh, Additional AG, Punjab counsel appearing for the State of Punjab and the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, however, submits that the proposal submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Traffic) was examined by the authorities but was not found to be feasible. The alternative sites proposed for running of the car bazar, according to Mr. Singh are owned by different government departments and being valuable public property, cannot be allowed to be utilized for the purpose of holding of the car bazar. That being so, we find -5- CWP NO. 2174 OF 2007 no justification to direct user of any such alternative sites for facilitating the business activities of rich persons who invest huge amount for sale and purchase of cars. Like any other business, sale and purchase of old cars is also a money making business. Those who are interested in carrying on such a lucrative business have to make suitable arrangements for themselves, in consonance with the bye-laws of the corporation. They cannot demand reservation of space for them from out of valuable public property. Suffice it to say that beyond what has already been said by Division Bench of this Court in the previous order extracted above, we see no justification to issue any further direction. In the result this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (SURYA KANT) JUDGE August 22, 2008. Malik