IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 61 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 28th September, 2010. Ram Nehat Petitioner through Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate Versus Chandigarh Administration & Ors. Respondents through Mr. K.K.Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 23.07.2003 [Annexure P-3] and the consequential order dated 29.4.2009 [Annexure P-5] whereby his claim for allotment of a Booth Site has been rejected. The afore-stated allotment was to be governed in accordance with the provisions of the “Allotment/ Transfer of Built Up Booths in Any Sector on Lease and Hire/ Purchase Basis in Chandigarh Rules, 1991”. Suffice it to mention that the petitioner has been denied the allotment of Booth site only for the reason that when the Screening Committee visited the Rehri site to conduct the survey, the petitioner “was not present as he had gone to the market to purchase some items. As per the one survey Ravi Kumar son of Mool Chand was found doing the business of Dhaba at the petitioner's site”. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears to me that such a casual approach ought not to have been adopted by the authorities while determining the ownership/lessee's rights of the petitioner or other applicants qua the subject-commercial properties. The petitioner is admittedly possessing Hawker's licence No. 2105, Registered at Sr. No. 2846 and has been paying the 'licence fee' regularly. At a particular point of time when the survey was conducted, it could be a mere coincidence that the petitioner was away to market for purchasing the essentials to run a Dhaba. The report dated 23.07.2003 [Annexure P-3] can not be accepted and a conclusive proof that the petitioner had sublet the site of eligibility. The said report is accordingly rejected and the consequential orders dated 29.04.2009 and 21.10.2009 [Annexures P-5 and P-7] are also set aside. The respondents are directed to re- verify as to whether the petitioner had voluntarily surrendered his site to any one else including Ravi Kumar son of Mool Chand or he has been actually running the Dhaba at the site in controversy. The fact finding inquiry shall be conducted after associating the petitioner who shall be at liberty to produce the necessary proof as well affidavits of others working in the Rehri Market. The needful shall be done by the authorities within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. Dasti. September 28, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE