CWP No.15691 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15691 of 2008 Date of decision: May 8, 2009. Mrs. Gulshan Dewan & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri J.S. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Shri A.S. Virk, Advocate for respondent(s) No.5 to 25. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioners seek a direction for allotment of booths in the Janta Rehri Market, Phase III-B-I, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Their precise grievance is that they have been working in temporary sheds at the aforesaid places since 1998 or prior thereto, however, at the time of allotment of booths, the respondents have decided to allot the same to 322 persons only on the basis of a survey conducted in the year 1998 and not to 378 persons who were found actually working in temporary sheds at the site at the time CWP No.15691 of 2008 -: 2 :- when fire broke out on 1.6.2007. The petitioners though are amongst the 378 affected persons, however, their names do not figure in the list of 322 persons prepared on the basis of the survey conducted in the year 1998. The petitioners' claim is that after the 1998 survey was conducted, some of the site holders have transferred these sites to the petitioners for consideration and, therefore, for all intents and purposes, the petitioners have replaced the original allottees and are entitled to be allotted the booths. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the private Respondents contends that the petitioners were inducted as tenants only and this fact has been admitted by them while claiming compensation as a result of the fire which gutted the entire market in the year 2007, inasmuch, as they had claimed compensation only to the damage caused to the material and not the booths/property. The official-respondents have also taken somewhat similar stand. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties at some length and considering the fact that more than one seriously disputed questions of fact are involved but keeping in view the fact that the petitioners belong to a poor strata of the society and if found eligible, would be entitled to some benefit under a welfare policy framed by the respondents, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the GMADA to constitute an Officers Committee to be headed by its Estate Officer to re- examine the petitioners' claim strictly in terms of the policy decision and if it is found that they are also entitled for allotment of some sites, necessary orders shall be passed to that effect. The entire exercise shall be undertaken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of CWP No.15691 of 2008 -: 3 :- this order. Till then, status quo shall be maintained. Dasti May 8, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge