HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** CWP No. 9562 of 2008. *** Rajinder Lal Sachdeva Vs. State of Punjab and others. *** Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, CJ and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh. *** Present: Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl: A.G.Punjab with Ms. Sonu Chahal, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Shri C.M.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Shri Gaurav Deep Goel, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4. *** T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral) The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition filed in public interest is that booth No. 50 measuring 127 square feet was allotted to one Brahm Parkash son of Shri Mukand Lal, resident of New Suraj Nagar, Abohar by the Abohar Municipal Council, Abohar. The allotment was according to the petitioner meant to enable the allottee to run a Milk Booth. Instead of doing so, the allottee has according to the allegations made by the petitioner converted the booth into commercial establishment for running a travel agency. The petitioner's further allegation is that the rent for the said booth is also not being recovered by the Municipal Council to the prejudice of the Council. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this petition has been filed out of a business rivalry more than in public interest. It is common ground that the petitioner is also running a -2- CWP No. 9562 of 2008. travel agency around the same area in which booth No. 50 is being used for that purpose by the allottees. A rival businessman cannot in our opinion maintain a petition for public interest with a view to get the shop of the rival shut down. On that ground alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed. We, however, make it clear that this order shall not prevent the Municipal Council from examining the matter regarding any arrears of licence fee due from the allottee of booth No. 50 and taking steps against him for recovering the same. This would also not prevent the Municipal Council for taking appropriate action against the allottee in case the the allottee has committed any breach of the conditions of the allotment. With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Jasbir Singh) Judge December 23, 2008 Malik