IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3174 of 2011 Date of Decision : February 22, 2011. Sukhwinder Singh Bhoma and another .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.S.l.Chander Shekhar, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 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 petitioners are stated to be Chairman and Presidents, respectively, of the 1984 Sikh Kataleyam Pirat Society (Regd.) at Amritsar. They seek a writ of certiorari for quashing the Circular/ Instructions dated 13.1.1993 (Annexure P-15) and also the Policy/Circular dated 13.12.1989 issued by the Department of Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh. The Policy Circular dated 13.12.1989 provides various types of reservations in the matter of allotment of residential plots/multi-storeyed houses under different development Schemes of the Improvement Trusts in the State of Punjab and in relation to the subject controversy, its para No.2 C.W.P.No .3174 of 2011 2 reads as follows:- “2. In order to accommodate persons falling under the categories of Sikh Migrants and Terrorists affected persons, Government will be competent to reserve/allot plots to them in any particular scheme of any Improvement Trusts, provided the reservation for Sikh Migrants and Terrorists affected victims do not exceed 5% in one scheme. The Trust may send such cases to Government for allotment after due verification as per instructions issued by the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation from time to time.....” The second Circular/Instructions dated 13.1.1993 (Annexure P-15) also pertains to the reservations of residential/commercial plots to the terrorists affected/riots affected Sikh Migrants families in the State of Punjab, whereby in continuation of the earlier Government Circulars dated 5.2.1986 and 22.1.1987 (which are not on record), it has been further clarified to the effect that:- “3. It is also made clear that persons as mentioned in the subject may be allotted only residential plots as instructions contained in Government Memo No.1/12/81/3C2/16545 dated 13.12.1989 after adoption of procedure as laid down in Rule 11 of the Rules, 1983. Receipt of this letter may be acknowledged....” The petitioners assail these Circulars after a period of 21 and 19 years, respectively, on the plea that by virtue thereof, 5% reservation of residential plots in favour of the anti-Sikhs/Terrorists affected victims has been withdrawn which was earlier provided to them through a policy C.W.P.No .3174 of 2011 3 decision taken by the Council of Ministers. It is urged that the impugned Circulars have not been issued with the approval of the Council of Ministers nor are authenticated in the name of the Governor of Punjab and are per se illegal being contrary to the mandate of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Uttam Singh versus State of Punjab (1998 (1) PLR 67 as well as a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Dr.Yashwant Trimbak, 1996 (2) SCC 305. It is also argued that the Government of India has issued a Policy Circular dated 16.8.2005 (Annexure P-14) regarding implementation of the recommendations of Justice Nanavati Commission and the same have not been given effect by the State of Punjab. Reliance is also placed on an order dated 8.12.2010 passed by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court with reference to the Government of India Circular dated 16.1.2006 and the directions issued to the State Governments, Commissioner/District Magistrates, Lucknow and Kanpur “to assess the loss incurred by the Sikh victims during the riot of 1984 on the basis of affidavits and evidence supplied by them, if it is in their possession and pay the said compensation to them taking into consideration various Government orders issued from time to time by the State Government and the Central Government” Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the various policy decisions placed on record, I am satisfied that the writ petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioners themselves C.W.P.No .3174 of 2011 4 are not sure about the issue(s) they intend to raise in this petition. Suffice it to observe that the Circulars dated 13.12.1989 and 13.1.1993 (Annexures P-16 and P-15, respectively) cannot be construed to mean that the State Government has withdrawn 5% reservation in the matter of allotment of residential plots/multi storeyed flats as was earlier given to the victims of 1984 anti-Sikh riots. In fact judicial notice can be taken of the fact that such reservation is still in vogue, may be in a modified form. Further, if the 1989 and 1993 Circulars intended or have withdrawn the above-stated benefit, it is for the petitioners to explain the inordinate delay and latches for not impugning the same though no such explanation has come forward. Adverting to the contention of non-compliance of Article 166 of the Constitution, I am of the considered opinion that the plea raised by the petitioners is wholly misconceived. It is not the mandate of Article 166 that every policy decision must be taken by the Council of Ministers only. It all depends upon the provisions contained in the 'Rules of Business' as to who is the Competent Authority/Minister-in-Charge to take a policy decision in relation to the subject(s) allocated to a particular department by the Governor of the State. Similarly, the reliance placed upon the order passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is also not relevant as the nature of relief sought in this writ petition is totally different. There is no averment that the 1984 anti-Sikh riots victims have not been paid C.W.P.No .3174 of 2011 5 compensation towards the loss suffered by them. In the absence of material particulars in this regard, no directions for academic purposes alone can be issued. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue a specific cause, if any, before an appropriate forum. Dasti. February 22, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE