C.W.P. No.16198 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.16198 of 1992 Date of Decision:- 29.02.2008 Joginder Singh and another ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate vs. The State of Haryana & others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.R.S.Kundu, Addl.AG, Haryana. Mr.Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate. Ms.Divya Godara, Advocate for Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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) In this civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the list of successful persons who have been allotted shop-cum- booths sites in the New Grain Market, Pipli, (Annexure P-4) in a draw of lots. [2] The facts may be noticed briefly. [3] The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board ( in short, the Board) took a policy decision dated 1.6.1987 (Annexure P-1) whereby the percentage of reservation in the matter of allotment of plots for shops and C.W.P. No.16198 of 1992 -2- booths for different categories including minimum plots to be offered to the General Public through an open auction, was prescribed. [4] The above-stated policy was subsequently revised vide instructions dated 23.10.1990 (Annexure P-2) in terms whereof it was decided that in the New Grain Markets, which are to be developed in future, all the old licensees Category No-II, eligible to participate in draw of lots, will be allotted plots for shops through draw of lots at 'reserved price'. The remaining shops and plots were decided to be disposed of by draw of lots through an open auction as per the following reservation policy: (i) Open auction - 75 per cent (ii) Growers - 20 per cent (iii) Harijans- 5 per cent [5] Booth plots in the New Grain Market, Pipli, however, were decided to be allotted 50 per cent by open auction, 5 per cent to Scheduled Castes, 5 per cent to Backward Classes, 5 per cent to ex-servicemen, 7 ½ per cent to the old licensees and other shop-keepers, 7 ½ per cent to oustees and remaining 20 per cent to “growers” and offers were invited vide Annexure P-3. [6] The petitioners as well as respondents No. 4 to 14 along with others applied against 20 per cent plots reserved for “growers”. The draw of lots was held on 18.11.1992. Whereas respondents No. 4 to 14 were declared successful and their names were shown in the impugned list, Annexure P-4, the petitioners were not fortunate enough to get any plot allotted to them. C.W.P. No.16198 of 1992 -3- [7] Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. [8] Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the official as well as the private respondents have filed their respective replies. [9] Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the material on record has been perused. [10] Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the manner in which the draw of lots was held, lacks transparency as pick and choose policy was adopted. It is alleged that one Puran Chand Gupta who was sent as an Observer by the Head Office, himself prepared the list and arbitrarily picked up the slips from the 'pitcher' and withheld the names of those whose slips were actually picked up by him, thereby depriving them from the allotment. In para 10 of the written statement, the official respondents have, however, categorically denied the afore-mentioned allegation as according to them, no attempt to favour anybody was made; draw of lots was held in the presence of 500-600 persons of the general public and it was duly published in the 4 local newspapers also. Before the draw of lots was held; an advance intimation was also sent to all the Sarpanches of the notified areas of the Market Committee. It has been further averred that “the slips with the names and serial number were put in pitchers one by one after announcing name on the mike and separately the slips of various plot numbers were put in a separate pitcher. The observer requested one of the public man to come forward and take out one slip each from both the pitcher. Thus the names of the persons and the plot nos were tallied. The name of the successful grower was announced on the mike. Since there were 14 plots, the publicman took-out separate slips from both the pitcher of 14 different times.” C.W.P. No.16198 of 1992 -4- [11] No replication to controvert the above-mentioned stand taken by the official respondents, has been filed. Otherwise also, such like disputed question of facts cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, more so when there is not an iota of material on record to substantiate the bald allegations. [12] Learned counsel for the petitioners then contended that many ineligible applicants have been allotted the plots. In this regard, he has referred to the averments made in paras 12, 13 and 14 of the writ petition. In para 12, it is averred that one Ram Pal son of Babu Ram was given two application forms as “grower”, even though he is a Registered Medical Practitioner in Pipli and owns only 5 kanals 2 marlas of land which is used by him as a 'garden'. Similarly, one Jawahar Lal son of Mangat Ram who is running a rice sheller at Mathana, has also been allotted a plot though he uses the land owned by him for drying the rice. Likewise, one Prabha Devi daughter of Ram Murti and who is the wife of a Clerk working in Tehsil office Thanesar, too has been allotted a plot though there was nothing on record to suggest that she owns any agricultural land. It is claimed that she is part-time 'property dealer'. [13] The above-stated persons have filed their respective replies. They have refuted the petitioners' allegation regarding their eligibility. It is contended that all of them fall within the meaning of “growers” as provided in the revised policy dated 23.10.1990 (Annexure P-2). [14] In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it may be repeated here that 20 per cent plots were reserved for “growers”. The expression “grower” is distinguishable and different from the expressions like “agriculturist” or “farmer”. A person who owns the agricultural land need C.W.P. No.16198 of 1992 -5- not himself be an 'agriculturist' or 'farmer' but he can still be a “grower”. The OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (The OED) defines 'Grower' as a 'Person who grows things'. It would, thus, not be necessary for a 'grower' that he should personally cultivate the agricultural land owned by him. [15] The petitioners themselves have admitted that Ram Pal son of Babu Ram and Jawahar Lal son of Mangat Ram own agricultural land. As regard to Prabha Devi daughter of Ram Murti, her counsel has pointed out that she was owner in possession of agricultural land purchased by her vide a registered sale-deed dated 7.2.1992. In these circumstances, the action of the official respondents in treating them as “growers” cannot be termed contrary to the above-stated policy instructions. [16] For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. February 29, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE