IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. NO. 7652 OF 2008 DATE OF DECISION: May 8, 2008 Raj Singh …Petitioner Versus The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR. HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. The only issue raised in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner who is at Sr. No. 2 in the list of empanelled candidates for allotment of a retail outlet in respect of site at village Samadh Bhai, District Moga, is entitled to be preferred over empanelled candidate at Sr. No. 1. The reason that the empanelled candidate at Sr. No. 1 i.e. respondent No. 4 does not have any land on a road which have width of 5 Karams as per norms. According to the allegation made in the petition, the land offered by the empanelled candidate at Sr. No. 1 falls on Samadh Bhai to Ganjigulab Singh Wala road, which has a width of only 4 Karams. The petitioner has claimed that the land offered by him falls on C.W.P. No. 7652 of 2008 Samadh Bhai to Pullewala road, which has width of 8 Karams as per the norms laid down by the Departmental Officers Committee. On the complaint made by him, an enquiry was held by the enquiry committee comprising of Shri S.C. Tiwari, Manager NWP (NZ), Shri H.K. Chawla, Ch. Manager N/P (NZ) and Shri R. Misri, General Manager (NZ). They submitted their report dated 8.2.2008 (P-8). The enquiry has concluded on the basis of letter dated 14.11.2007 sent by the ESO Ferozepur, that after checking up with the Tehsildar, Baghapurana, it has been found that as per record the width of road from Smadh Bhai to Ganjigulap Singh Wala was 4 Karams but on both sides land has been acquired and pillars have been installed at 8 feet. It has covered the passage measuring 34 feet wide, which is in running condition and premix on 18 feet has already been put. The letter further clarified that no person could take possession upto 34 feet wide road. A copy of the jamabandi on which road falls was also attached with the letter. Accordingly, the empanelled candidate at Sr. No. 1-respondent No. 4 has not been found disqualified on the ground that the site offered by him did not answer the description given in the detailed guidelines Annexure P-2, which required minimum width of the road to be 5 Karams. The petitioner has disputed the enquiry report by stating that no land has been acquired nor any premix has been laid. The aforementioned contention raised by the petitioner has raised a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court. 2 C.W.P. No. 7652 of 2008 Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to the remedy of filing of a suit. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) May 8, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3