Civil Writ Petition No.1140 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1140 of 1992 Date of Decision:25.04.2011 M/s Rajput and Company ......Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, with Mr.Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.T.S.Doabia, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) As is evident from the record that the petitioner-Firm has challenged the impugned orders(Annexures P-3 and P-4), by virtue of which, it was ejected from the premises in dispute, in view of the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land(Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered and is liable to be disposed of in the same terms of the judgment dated 07.04.2011 of this Court, rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.1138 of 1992 titled as M/s Chain Singh Muni Lal Versus Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and others, the operative part of which is, as under: “30. Meaning thereby, the authorities below have recorded the valid reasons and rightly passed the impugned ejectment orders(Annexures P4 Civil Writ Petition No.1140 of 1992 2 and P5). Such orders containing valid reasons based on the evidence, cannot legally be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 31. Be that as it may, as it emerges from the record that some of the petitioners got the allotment of plots in the newly established market, in lieu of their long possession of shops in the old market. Some of them remained unsuccessful in getting the plots in the new market for a variety of reasons. The right of such allotment of alternative site of some of the petitioners, who did not get the site in the new market, who were carrying their business in the old market, where they had established themselves over the years and who were being compelled to abandon their trading at those places, has been well recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Prem Chand Trilok Chand and others v. State of Haryana and others (1998) 5 S.C.C. 213, in which, it was observed in para 4 as under:- “We are of the view that normally once the Government starts regulating the place of sale of agricultural produce covered by the Act and does not merit any other place to be used for the purpose, there is an inherent obligation of the Government to provide at the new site for all the licensed dealers sufficient accommodation for carrying on their trade and until that is done it would not be possible for the Government to direct closure of the old site.” 32. Again reiterating the same view, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Labha Ram and sons and others v. State of Punjab and others, (1998) 5 S.C.C. 207 has ruled that “the Government has an inherent obligation to provide all the licensed dealers sufficient accommodation for carrying on their trade. Merely providing an opportunity to complete with the rest of the public for getting accommodation in the new market is not sufficient to discharge the inherent obligation of the Government.” 33. In this view of the matter, to me, the case of such petitioners, who remained unsuccessful in getting the plots in the new market, deserves sympathetic consideration by the State Government under the present set of circumstances. Furthermore, keeping in focus the fact that such petitioners, who did not get the plots in the new market and due their virtual displacement from the places where they had established themselves over Civil Writ Petition No.1140 of 1992 3 the years and who were being compelled to abandon their trading, (they) are also entitled for a reasonable time to vacate the premises in dispute. To me, a period of one year is reasonable and is granted to remain in possession to those petitioners, who did not get the plots in the new market. 34. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 35. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petitions are hereby dismissed as such. 36. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the respondents are directed to sympathetically re-consider the claim of, only those petitioners, who remained unsuccessful in the allotment of plots in the new market for any reason whatsoever, on reasonable terms and conditions of payment of market price in this relevant direction. However, the operation of impugned ejectment orders(Annexures P-4 and P-5) qua only those petitioners, who did not get the plots in the new market, shall remain stayed till 13.04.2012 to enable them to re-establish their business to earn livelihood. 37. Needless to mention here that the above mentioned directions would not be applicable, in any manner, quo those petitioners, who had already got the plots in the new market in this context.” In this view of the matter and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, the instant writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as in M/s Chain Singh Muni Lal's case(supra). April 25, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE