CWP No. 9557 of 2010 CWP No.6690 of 2010 and CWP No. 18840 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9557 of 2010 Date of decision December 21, 2011 Nalanda Elementary School and another ....... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CWP No. 6690 of 2010 Kailash Chand ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CWP No. 18840 of 2010 Durgiana Abadi Sangarsh Samiti ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. H. S. Bath, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 9557 of 2010. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG., Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Kanwaljit Skingh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 6690 of 2010. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 18840 of 2010. Mr. Salil Sagar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Samrath Sagar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.3 in CWP No. 6690 and 18840 of 2010. Mr. Parveen K Kataria, Advocate for respondent No.9 in CWP No. 18840 of 2010. CWP No. 9557 of 2010 CWP No.6690 of 2010 and CWP No. 18840 of 2010 2 **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). CM No.17434 of 2011 in Cwp No.18840 of 2010 1. C.M.is allowed. Affidavit taken on record. 2. In CWP Nos.18840 and 6690 of 2010 the issue is one of the entitlement of the respective petitioners to be allotted shops in the newly constructed complex as a measure of fairness to persons who had been previously occupying shops and places of various dimensions within the Durgiana Mandir Complex and who were required to be evicted to make possible the beautification of the temple complex. At a previous hearing when the complaint was that in the manner of reallocation there is no transparent policy adopted, I had sought for details as to how the reallocation was to be done. In response to the directions, the Amritsar Improvement Trust has filed an affidavit through its Chairman. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP No.6690 of 2010 that he was running an industry in an extent of 1100 sq. yards, but several other persons had been in occupation of much smaller shops and area are allotted bigger or shops of equal size, with no weighage at all given to the size of shops that were held. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents point out that all the shops which are going to be constructed and intended for allotment are more or less of the same size and the scheme is only to accommodate all of them and it is not possible to make proportionate size of shops for allotments. The corner shops in the place are a little larger and in the manner of allotment CWP No. 9557 of 2010 CWP No.6690 of 2010 and CWP No. 18840 of 2010 3 the respondents would follow a policy of draw of lots so that if there are smaller variations in the size, it cannot be complained that there was any partiality practiced towards the allottees. 4. In the distribution of shops by way of re allotments, the policy of adjusting them by draw of lots is a prevalent judicially accepted prevalent practice and I will find no reason to suspect the bona fides of the fairness of such a decision. It will be irrelevant that persons having shops or places of various sizes in the existing temple complex are now coming by a different dispensation of being provided shops of equal dimensions. It shall be improper to direct that the new allotments must also be made of varying sizes. Uniformity in sizes go for better aesthetics. Therefore, I would find that no special privilege should be given to any tenant or any occupier by the fact that one shop keeper was occupying a larger portion but he comes by the same size as a smaller shop keeper in the new dispensation. If all the newly adjusted tenants come by shops of the same dimensions no prejudice should be said to be caused. 5. Counsel for the Durgiana Mandir has a grievance that status of the petitioner in CWP No. 6690 of 2010 itself is not admitted. I do no want the writ petition to be detained on a consideration of a disputed issue. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner had been inducted as a tenant initially. The allotment shall be done of all persons including the petitioner in CWP No. 6690 of 2010. On the issue of status if there exists any independent proceedings, that shall be continued and the rights of parties will be determined elsewhere. This writ petition adjudges only fairness of the scheme of allotments and that the shop keepers who have been evicted or who would be affected shall be readjusted shall be done by allocation of shops by draw of lots in the manner admitted by the CWP No. 9557 of 2010 CWP No.6690 of 2010 and CWP No. 18840 of 2010 4 Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Amritsar Improvement Trust. 6. The counsel for the petitioners contend that they shall not be evicted till the new constructions are made and delivered to them. The counsel for the Mandir point out, and in my view correctly, that the new shops are not constructed else where but in an organized fashion in the very same place after securing their eviction and demolishing the existing structures. The only protection that could be given in that the Improvement Trust shall finalize the construction plan, draw up a time schedule for beginning and completing the construction, secure allocation of funds for the projects and publish the same as the location in the notice board at the Mandir Complex before securing eviction. The publication is to ensure transparency of the decision making and to bring a sense of fair play to all the affected parties. 7. The petitioner in CWP No.9557 of 2010 is a School and the counsel says that he is satisfied about the allotment proposed for the School. The same is recorded. 8. All the writ petitions are disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 21, 2011 archana