IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14482 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.05.2010 Mata Vaishno Devi Mandir Sabha (Regd.), 165, Atam Nagar, Bank Colony, Ludhiana through its General Secretary, Shri Satish Singla. ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab through the Secretary, Department of Local Government, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Swarn Tiwana, Advocate, for Mr. R.S.Rai, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vijay Pal, Mr. Arvind Seth, and Ms.Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocates, for respondent No.3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The application No.4854 of 2010 is moved at the instance of 3rd respondent to pre-pone the hearing of the case for consideration of the issue relating to allotment of a place reserved for religious purpose. The writ petition has been moved at the instance of the petitioner challenging Civil Writ Petition No.14482 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - a resolution passed by the Improvement Trust rejecting the petitioner's application and approving the allotment of the site to the 3rd respondent, which appears to have been subsequently approved by the Government. 2. It is an admitted case that in the matter of allotment to any institution, the Improvement Trust itself does not have the power to take the decision and it can be done under the provisions of the Act and relevant rules Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of land and allotment of plots) Rules of 1983 only be the Committee constituted under the rules. The apprehension of the petitioner is that one of the members in the Committee has already pre-judged the issue by supporting the cause of the 3rd respondent for allotment. If the Rules specify that in the matter of allotment, the Committee alone shall have the power, such a decision will be taken by the Committee and it shall be left to the Committee member, who has already expressed his view whether an occasion arises for his own recusal. The attempt shall be to secure an objective decision in the light of the relative merits of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The petitioner contends that he was an earlier applicant having moved an application for allotment of the site as early as on 13.02.1990 and also paid Rs.6,000/- as earnest on 09.08.1991. He would urge that as the first applicant, the petitioner alone is entitled to consideration. The 3rd respondent also pleads that it is more suited to obtain the allotment. 3. The contentions of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent shall be heard and a decision taken on the merits of the respective contentions and in accordance with law as approved by the enactment and the rules Civil Writ Petition No.14482 of 2009 (O&M) - 3 - framed thereunder. The resolution of the Trust in so far as it disapproves of the change of user from a religious use to a residential use is affirmed and the resolution in so far as it rejects the petitioner's claim to allotment, is set aside. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Committee shall have an independent right to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. 4. The writ petition is disposed of. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.05.2010 sanjeev