C.W.P.No. 17568 of 2011 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P.No. 17568 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 20, 2011 Gurpreet Singh ---Appellant versus State of Punjab and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr. N.S.Khandola, Advocate, for the petitioner *** 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing of order dated 28.7.2011 (P-2) passed by Financial Commissioner Development and Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Agriculture. The principal prayer made by the petitioner is that one Gurnam Singh Kandola son of Sh. Piara Singh has been working as a Chairman, Market Committee, Nurmahal District Jalandhar. Against his appointment as Chairman, Civil Writ Petition No. 5340 of 2011 was filed which was disposed of on 5.4.2011 with a direction to the Financial Commissioner Development, Punjab to decide the representation made by the petitioner. In the impugned C.W.P.No. 17568 of 2011 -2- decision taken on the representation made by the petitioner it has been held that although there was gap period when Gurnam Singh Kandola, Chairman was not licencee of the Market Committee, which is a basic condition to become member and to be appointed as Chairman. The Financial Commissioner has held that Licence No. 783 issued to the firm of respondent No. 3 was valid up to 31.3.2009 which was subsequently renewed up to 31.3.2010. However, a new licence No. 839 was issued to his firm on 24.3.2011 which is valid up to 31.3.2013. The Financial Commissioner adopting liberal approach has condoned the gap period of about one year when respondent No. 3 did not have the licence by giving him the benefit that it is fact of life that people very often forget to get various licences e.g. Driving, arms etc. renewed before their expiry. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that if the appointment of respondent No. 3 has been challenged at a stage when he had already acquired the licence or got it renewed then it will be too late for us to conclude that he could not become member of the Board and consequently its Chairman. The gap period has rightly been ignored by respondent No. 1. There is, thus, no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 20, 2011 PARAMJIT