IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.19295 of 2008 Date of decision: 28.11.2008 Smt. Krishana Devi ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Hemant Gupta. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh. Present: Mr. Pankaj Maini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. --- Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the orders dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure P-15), whereby the claim of the petitioner for allotment of Tea Stall at Bus Stand, Hisar was declined. The husband of the petitioner died on 26th April, 1996 on account of 100% burn injuries. Such burn injuries were on account of bursting of stove. The petitioner was allotted a Tea Stall at Bus Stand, Hisar on 22nd July, 1998 for a period of one year at the monthly rent of Re.1 as a dependent of soldier. A copy of the said allotment letter is attached as Annexure P-5. As per the terms of allotment, the petitioner was to seek renewal every year. At that time, the policy dated 16th June, 1982 (Annexure P-3) was in operation which contemplated allotment of such Tea Stalls to the widows of Ex-servicemen who have died in harness. C.W.P. No.19295 of 2008 - 2 - It was on 22nd October, 2006, policy regarding allotment of Tea Stall was revised and only unemployed resident of Haryana and are disabled soldiers or widows of soldiers killed in action or dependents of unmarried service personnel killed in action were made eligible for allotment of such Tea Stalls. The petitioner challenged the revised policy before this Court vide writ petition No.4933 of 2006. The said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation. The order passed on the basis of representation so submitted was challenged by the petitioner in CWP No.14173 of 2007. It was held that the new policy is to operate prospectively and which would not result into eviction and removal of allottees like the petitioner. It was also found that the decision regarding withdrawing the permission to use Tea Stall has been taken without giving any notice. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to give notice in case any adverse decision against the petitioner. It is, therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition have been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Supreme Court's judgment reported in AIR 2007, 750 SC-Union of India and others versus M/s Asian Food Industries to contend that the revised policy will not operate retrospectively and therefore, the eligibility condition changed in the year 2006 will not be applicable to the petitioner. C.W.P. No.19295 of 2008 - 3 - We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and do not find any merit in the present petition. The petitioner was allotted Tea Stall in the year, 1998 for a period of one year. The relevant clause reads as under :- “This permission is only for 1 year, for granting the further permission you have to made an application in the office of the Transport Commissioner and after getting the permission you have to intimate this office otherwise your permission be deemed as elapsed after the passing of one year.” In pursuance of the said condition, the term of the Tea Stall allotted to the petitioner was renewed from year to year till 31st March, 2006. The new policy came to be announced in October, 2006, thereafter, the allotment of Tea Stall has to be made in terms of the policy. The term of the Tea Stall allotted has come to an end. Therefore, the argument raised by the petitioner that the policy is being given retrospective effect is not tenable. In terms of the new policy, the soldiers who are disabled or wives of the soldiers killed in action or insurgency are the one who are made eligible for allotment of Tea Stall. The petitioner was permitted the use of Tea Stall for a period of one year at a time. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any terms and conditions in the policy that allotment of Tea Stall was contemplated for any particular number of years. C.W.P. No.19295 of 2008 - 4 - Therefore, the decision to only consider the disabled soldiers or dependents of soldiers killed in action cannot be said to be warranted to be operative retrospectively as the term of the Tea Stall allotted to the petitioner has come to an end by efflux of time. In view of above, we find no merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed in limine. (Hemant Gupta) Judge (Nawab Singh) Judge 28.11.2008 sanjeev