CWP No.4977 of 1986 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4977 of 1986 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.10.2011 Raj Kumar son of Pirthi Chand resident of Mohalla Nandha Missar, Patiala. ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through the Estate Officer, Punjab P.W.D. (B&R) Patiala and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:None for the petitioner Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. ***** 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 There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. The counsel for the respondents is present. The petitioner challenges the order of ejectment passed under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971 on the ground that several other tenants had been allowed to be continued while action had been taken only against the petitioner. He was referring to a policy of the Government dated 01.06.1970 allowing the occupants of 235 Government shops to continue irrespective of the fact whether they were original tenants or sub-tenants of original tenants or sub-tenants of sub-tenants. The policy also made reference to enhance rent, CWP No.4977 of 1986 (O&M) [2] which was liable to be paid at the instance of the tenants. 2. While a State action is always to be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 and discrimination could itself be a ground for annulling the action taken by the public authority, if justification could be shown by the State as to why a particular action for ejectment was taken against the tenant then, the issue of discrimination cannot arise. In this case, the action for ejectment was taken in the year 1984 when the petitioner had created a sub-tenancy and also fallen into the arrears of rent. The ejectment action became necessary, according to the State, by the fact that the tenant did not pay rent in the manner contemplated under the policy issued on 01.06.1970 and they were entitled to take action for ejectment. 3. I cannot find fault with the order and it cannot be assailed as discriminatory by the tenant. The writ petition ought to fail and, therefore, dismissed. If there had been any subsequent agreement between parties, the same will not be in any way affected by this decision. This decision confines itself only to the tenability of the order of ejectment already passed on the grounds urged therein. OCTOBER 17, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE