Civil Revision No.7276 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.7276 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : February 16, 2011 Sergeant N.B.Madan (Retd.) ... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Pankaj Maini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sukant Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana Mr.Karminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Both the courts below declined to grant the ad interim injunction to the petitioner – plaintiff (herein referred as `the petitioner') restraining the respondents – defendants (herein referred as `the respondents) from opening/ installing a kiosk at the Haryana Roadways Bus Stand, Panipat and for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to allow him to run the same during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner has claimed himself as ex-serviceman, retired as Sergeant from Indian Air Force in 1972. He having settled at Panipat Civil Revision No.7276 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] wants to instal a kiosk at the Haryana Roadways Bus Stand Panipat on the ground that as per policy dated 4.5.1973 and guidelines dated 19.4.1973 issued by Central Government as well as the Government of Haryana, the petitioner had been allotted Jai Jawan Tea Stall at the said bus stand in the year 1976 for the sale of tea, biscuits, cold drinks, etc. Thereafter, vide letter dated 19.5.1981, the Government of Haryana decided to allot Jai Jawan Stalls to disabled ex-servicemen/ widows and ex-servicemen by way of a special concession on nominal rent in order to rehabilitate them in civil life. However, in contravention of the said policy, the respondents are now auctioning the said Tea Stalls in open auction for which they have no right to do so. While controverting the allegations, the respondents submitted that no such policy to allot a tea stall without any open auction, is in operation. According to the new policy, the Jai Jawan Tea Stalls were to be allotted to the highest bidder amongst the disabled soldiers, widow of ex- servicemen, dependents of unmarried service personnel killed in action and ex-servicemen residents of Haryana, for a period of one financial year. The said policy was challenged by the petitioner and some other similarly situated persons by filing Civil Writ Petition No.4935 of 2006, titled “N.B.Madan vs. Union of India and others”, whereupon, the High Court while finding no merit in their pleas was not inclined to accept the petition, however, then on the request of the petitioners, it had dismissed the said writ petition as withdrawn. The Transport Commissioner, Haryana had issued instructions dated 3.7.2006 to all the General Managers in the State of Haryana clearly mentioning that the the existing Jai Jawan Tea Stall Civil Revision No.7276 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] Holders, whose allotment/ contract had expired, had no right to retain their stalls and they may be dispossessed immediately. In compliance with the said directions dated 3.7.2006, the General Manager, Haryana Roadways Panipat had issued notice dated 2.8.2006 to the petitioner to remove the unauthorised kiosk of Jai Jawan Tea Stall situated at Bus Stand Panipat. In the end, the respondents pleaded that the suit was misconceived and required dismissal. Both the courts refused to grant ad-interim injunction, the petitioner has come up in revision. Arguments heard. Record perused. The record reveals that initially, the petitioner was allotted a kiosk for one year in the year 1976 as per the policy decision of the Government of Haryana. As such, the petitioner being the licensee had no right to stay in the premises after the expiry of the period of license. Even otherwise, according to the latest revised policy of the State Government framed in the year 2006, only unemployed residents of Haryana, who are disabled soldiers, widows of soldiers killed in action and dependents of unmarried service personnel killed in action are eligible for allotment of Jai Jawan Tea Stall at Haryana Roadways Bus Stands, but the petitioner was not covered by the said policy. The said policy was challenged before the High Court by way of CWP No.4935 of 2006, but the said policy was not upset. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners (therein) to approach the State Government by way of representation. The Government has also not quashed or withdrawn the new policy. Therefore, the petitioner had no right to stay in the premises Civil Revision No.7276 of 2009(O&M) [ 4 ] after the expiry of the period of lease. Both the courts below have refused to grant injunction in favour of the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of any serious infirmity or perversity, the High Court is reluctant to interfere in the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. February 16, 2011 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE