IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10884 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 12.12.2011 Sat Pal .... PETITIONER Versus U.T. Administration and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate, Standing Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh, for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing of the order dated 25.3.2010 (Annexure P-25), passed by the Screening Committee, whereby his claim for allotment of a separate booth has been declined. In this case, in the year 1990, Agya Ram (father of the petitioner) along with his family migrated from Kashmir to Chandigarh due to disturbance in Khasmir valley. At that time, the petitioner was about 18 CWP No. 10884 of 2010 -2- years old. The family, headed by Agya Ram, was issued a provisional identity card, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. In this card, Agya Ram was shown to be the head of the family and petitioner, aged about 18 years, was shown as member of the family. Agya Ram, father of the petitioner, was provided temporary site to run his business in Sector 22, Chandigarh. In the year 1998, the Chandigarh Administration amended the Allotment/Transfer of built up Booths in any Sector on Lease/Hire Purchase basis in Chandigarh Rules, 1991 and framed the Allotment/Transfer of built up Booths in any Sector on Lease/Hire Purchase basis in Chandigarh (Amendment) Rules, 1997. Rule 5-A of the amended Rules reads as under :- “5-A The Competent Authority may allot a built-up booth in the market in any sector to :- (a) such registered Kashmiri Migrants as had been provided temporary sites for the sale of goods in Sector 20 and 22 and are recommended for allotment by the Deputy Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh. (b) Such persons who are running shops and other commercial establishments along V-3 road dividing Sector 40 and 41 and in the vicinity thereof, and are recommended for allotment by the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh. (c) Government and Semi-Government departments and undertakings that provide public utility services.” The father of the petitioner, brother of the petitioner, namely Mangat Ram, who was married at the time of his migration from Kashmir to Chandigarh, CWP No. 10884 of 2010 -3- as well as brother-in-law of the petitioner, namely Raj Kumar, were allotted separate booths. The petitioner, being 18 years old at the time of his migration to Chandigarh along with his father, was not considered for allotment of any booth, because he was not fulfilling any of the aforesaid conditions. When the claim of the petitioner for allotment of an independent booth was declined by the Screening Committee vide its order dated 25.3.2010 (Annexure P-25), the instant petition was filed. In the impugned order, the Screening Committee has observed that father of the petitioner has already been allotted one booth and as per the directions of the Court in CWP No. 8127 of 2002, only one member of each family can be given the benefit. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has become major before amendment of the Rules and after the framing of the amended Rules of 1997, and now he is independently working, therefore, he is entitled for a separate booth. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and considering the stand of the respondents, taken in the written statement, as well as the order dated March 04, 2009 (Annexure P-11), passed by this Court in CWP No. 8127 of 2002, we do not find any illegality in the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a separate booth. Admittedly, when the petitioner along with his father migrated to Chandigarh in the year 1990, he was 18 years old. At that time, the family CWP No. 10884 of 2010 -4- headed by his father was given a temporary site to run his business and the provisional identity card (Annexure P-1) was issued. Subsequently, after the framing of the amended Rules of 1997, the families headed by father, brother and brother-in-law of the petitioner, and 17 other families, who had migrated from Kashmir valley, applied to the Chandigarh Administration for allotment of booths. However, the petitioner, though was major and allegedly working independently, did not apply for allotment of a booth. The claims of the aforesaid 20 families were rejected by the Chandigarh Administration vide order dated January 24, 2002. Aggrieved against the same, the father, brother and brother-in-law of the petitioner filed CWP No. 8127 of 2002, which was allowed, and the Chandigarh Administration was directed to include the name of each of the petitioners in that petition in the list of eligible Kashmiri migrants, if any, for the purpose of allotment of built-up booth sites as per entitlement of each of the petitioners. They were further directed to consider the claim of other 17 Kashmiri migrant families. In that writ petition, father of the present petitioner never claimed a separate booth for the present petitioner. The name of the petitioner was also not included in other 17 migrant families. In our opinion, each family member was not to be given separate booth and if head of the family has been allotted the booth, the other members of the family are not entitled for separate booths, particularly when they were living with the head of the family. The brother of the petitioner, who was married at that time, was given separate booth, because he was doing temporary business CWP No. 10884 of 2010 -5- independently. As far as the petitioner is concerned, at the time of his migrating to Chandigarh along with his father, he was unmarried and was living with his father. Therefore, he is not entitled for a separate booth. Thus, in our opinion, claim of the petitioner for a separate booth has been rightly rejected by the Screening Committee. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 12, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE