C.W.P. No.23355 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.23355 of 2011 Date of Decision. 15.12.2011 Manish Kumar son of Shiv Shankar and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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) 1. The writ petition challenges the public notice issued on the basis of which alleged allotments are said to have been made for setting up “ration depots”. Learned counsel points out that he had earlier responded to an advertisement issued at the previous year for allotment of ratio depots and he was also interviewed. However, no results have been published and a fresh notice has been issued, which is impugned in the writ petition. The publication is dated 21.10.2011 which has set a date on 28.10.2011 for applications to be given to the Deputy Director, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. The grievance is that the time was too short and within the days available, there were four holidays. One was a Saturday, another was a Sunday, Diwali and Vishwakarma Day. 2. So long as the interview itself was not held on public holiday, the petitioners cannot have a grievance. Again the length of time that C.W.P. No.23355 of 2011 -2- should be prescribed through an advertisement depends on the nature of advertisement. In this case where the issue was in relation to allotment of ration depots, there was certainly a definite sense of urgency, which was involved, particularly in view of legislation in anvil and placed before the Parliament on the subject of Food Security, which may cast enormous value for distribution of food items for BPL sections. All the ration depots would obtain pre-eminent position for the public distribution system. Therefore, the State had a reason for setting a short date for response, which is fair enough and I would take it to be one of policy rather than perceiving it as a deliberate play to keep off some persons. If the petitioner could not himself apply within the time, which was granted, the petitioner has to blame himself and cannot make a ground for interference in the writ petition. The challenge made to the notice is therefore repulsed and the writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 15, 2011 Pankaj*