IN THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 334 of 2009 Date of Decision : February 26, 2009 Mrs. Gulshan Dewan and others ....Petitioners Versus Arun Goel and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Jagmohan Singh Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioners. T.P.S. MANN, J. The petitioners filed C.W.P. No. 15691 of 2008, wherein they sought issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the four respondents therein to make allotment of constructed booths to them and other similarly situated persons, who were actually working in and earning their livelihood from their respective shops/booths in Janta Rehri Market, Phase 3-B1, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, as the names of the petitioners brought on the list by the Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority had been dropped illegally and arbitrarily for some vested interests, and, with a further direction to remove the encroachments over the public place in the market/bazar (Janta Rehri Market). During its pendency, C.M. No. 18484 of 2008 was filed by C.O.C.P. No. 334 of 2009 -2- the petitioners with a prayer that the auction scheduled for 23.9.2008 for allotment of the constructed booths be stayed. This application was disposed of by the Division Bench on 22.9.2008 by directing that the auction scheduled for 23.9.2008 may proceed, but the same shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 21 other persons filed C.M. No. 18997 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 C.P.C. and Rule 32 of the Writ Jurisdiction (Punjab and Haryana) Rules, 1976 praying therein for being impleaded as party-respondents No. 5 to 25 in the writ petition, as according to them they were also claiming rights, which were parallel to the rights of the petitioners. Notice of the said application was issued on 22.9.2008 for 30.9.2008. That application was disposed of on November 12, 2008 when the Court allowed them to join as party-respondents No. 5 to 25. The hearing of the writ petition was adjourned to January 15, 2009. It was also observed that the word 'auction' in the order dated 22.9.2008 shall be read as 'allotment'. According to the petitioners, the present respondents held a draw of allotment on 24.9.2008 of commercial booths in Phase 3-B1, Urban Estate, Mohali on free hold basis, whereas the booths were to be auctioned and not to be allotted. In fact, the things were being camouflaged in such a manner which conveyed double meaning of the holding of the allotment of draw. The petitioners have been left out of the draw and not given the alternative sites, whereas respondents No. 5 C.O.C.P. No. 334 of 2009 -3- to 25 in the writ petition have been accommodated on the ground that they were having the same right as the petitioners. On 22.9.2008, when C.M. No. 18484 of 2008 filed on behalf of the petitioners was disposed of, it was clearly observed that the auction, scheduled for 23.9.2008, may proceed, but the same shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The word 'auction' in the order dated 22.9.2008 was later on substituted by the word 'allotment' at the time of hearing of the writ petition on November 12, 2008. A perusal of the order passed on that date in C.M. No. 18997 of 2008 filed by 21 persons for being impleaded as party-respondents would reveal that the Bench was of the view that those persons were necessary as well as proper parties and they were also claiming some rights, which may be parallel to the rights of the petitioners. In fact, no finding had been given that the rights of those 21 persons were parallel and the observation was only for the limited purpose of deciding and allowing the application filed by those 21 persons for being impleaded as party-respondents No. 5 to 25 in the writ petition. Moreover, no direction had been issued by the Bench on September 22, 2008 so as to stay the auction. Only direction issued was that the same may go on, but it shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The act of the respondents in going ahead with the allotment of the commercial booths to others and not to the petitioners C.O.C.P. No. 334 of 2009 -4- was in pursuance to the draw held on 24.9.2008. As the booths were not auctioned but were only allotted by way of a draw held on 24.9.2008, the order dated 22.9.2008 was, accordingly, modified by the Bench on November 12, 2008 by directing that the word 'auction' be read as 'allotment'. Resultantly, the allotment of the booths in favour of the others, including respondents No. 5 to 25 in the writ petition, was not a violation or disobedience of the orders passed by the High Court. There is no merit in the petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 26, 2009 JUDGE satish