CWP No. 18445 of 2009 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * CWP No. 18445 of 2009 Date of decision :December 9, 2009 * * * * * Santosh Saini ............petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...........respondents * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. Ranjan Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * * * HEMANT GUPTA, J. Challenge in the present writ petition is to Clause 5(b) of “Allotment/Transfer of Built-up Booths in any Sector on lease/Hire Purchae Basis in Chandigarh Rules, 1991”. The impugned Rule reads as under: “Rule 5:- The Competent Authority may allot a built up booth in the market in any sector to a person if: (a) he holds a valid hand cart licence or hawkers licence as well as a driving licence and CWP No. 18445 of 2009 :2: owns a hand cart or a behngi/khoncha/phari on the date of issue of the notification or on the date as may be prescribed for the purpose by the competent authority. (b) he does not own a commercial site/shop in Union Territory of Chandigarh, Mohali or Panchkula in his own name or in the name of any member of his family dependent upon him and the total family income from all sources does not extend Rs.7500/- per mensem (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only) for which he shall have to furnish an affidavit duly attested by the Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh to this effect. (c) he does not suffer from any contagious disease for which he shall furnish medical certificate of fitness” The petitioner sought allotment of a built up booth being a valid hand cart licence holder. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner is employed and his gross salary is exceeding Rs.18000/-. p.m. The grievance of the petitioner is that the ceiling of family income at Rs.7500/- per mensem is arbitrary, without any reasonable nexus with the objective to be achieved i.e rehabilitation of hand cart holders and therefore the said clause is illegal and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an order passed by the Assistant Estate Officer on 17.11.2008 in the case of CWP No. 18445 of 2009 :3: one D.C Jain wherein the purpose of the scheme was delineated as to provide a permanent source of livelihood to the licence holders by providing built up booths in rehri markets subject to their fulfilling all the eligibility conditions. It is thus contended that by denying the allotment of booth, the source of sustenance by users of handcart, is denial to the petitioner. Thus such Rule is arbitrary and not sustainable. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner but do not find any illegality in the impugned Rule. The condition of family income has nexus with the objective to be achieved. The State largesse should not be conferred on the person who is already possessed of sufficient means of sustaining himself and his family members. The State privilege can be conferred on a person who is deprived of minimum means of sustenance and therefore, the condition that family income should not exceed Rs.7500/- per mensem cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable which can be said to be violative of any vested right of the petitioner. By such condition, none of fundamental rights of the petitioner is infringed as the petitioner has a right to carry on the business subject to the reasonable conditions which may be imposed by the respondents. In view thereof, we do not find ground to interfere in this petition. Dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE December 9, 2009 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE