Anita Gupta vs Punjab State

S.S. Sodhi, J.

The matter here concerns that installation of a photostate machine in the compound of the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pathankot.

Om Parkash Gupta, the husband of the petitioner Anita Gupta, has a Khokha in the said Court compound where he has been working as a Typist since 1973. On May 24, 1992, the petitioner, who is Matriculate, applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur for permission to install a photostat machine in the Khokha of her husband. This application was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pathankot, for report. After necessary verification regarding the antecedents of the petitioner and taking into account also the undertaking of the petitioner to the effect that she would not demand any further space for this purpose, the Sub Divisional Magistrate by his letter of July 13, 1992, (Annexure P3) conveyed his ''no objection'' to the grant of permission to the petitioner for installation of a photostat machine in the Khokha of her husband Om Parkash. The Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, however, by his order of August 10, 1992, conveyed to the petitioner by his letter of August 25, 1992 (Annexure P4) declined this permission.

No deterred, the petitioner made three further applications to the Deputy Commissioner for installing a photostat machine with recommendations of the Finance Minister, Punjab and also of the Central Minister for Tourism to which she has received no reply.

A charge of favoritism has also been levelled by the petitioner against the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that after rejecting her application for the installation of the photostat machine he by his order of December 1, 1992, granted such permission to one Ravinder Singh who had applied for such permission on September 9, 1992, i.e. after she had been declined permission.

The Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, Shri I.D. Kanwar, has not chosen to controvert the averments made by the petitioner but has merely sought to rest content by emphasising that, "The Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, is empowered to grant licence for placing wooden cabin for the use of private typists in the Kuthery compound and such sanction was also made a discretionary one for the Deputy Commissioner and Government instructions are being complied with for the grant of licences for the installation of photostat machines in the premises". Reference was next made to the notification of the State Government of September 4, 1961 (Annexure R. 1), which he said empowered the Deputy Commissioner to issue licences for installation of photostat machines in the Court premises. A reference to this notification would, however, show that it contains no mention of installation of photostat machines in the Court compound.

The Deputy Commissioner in his return next referred to the decision of February 28, 1976 of the meeting of the Deputy Commissioner with the District Judge, Gurdaspur, under the Chairmanship of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Annexure R2) which is reproduced hereunder :

"The licence to be given to new typists should be free for all. Any one desiring to work as a typist in the Court compound shall have to apply to the District Judge who will hold an efficiency test to judge the capability of the applicant to work as a job typists in the Courts compounds. On the grant of the certificate of fitness to an applicant, he will approach the Deputy Commissioner''s office for the licence. The Deputy Commissioner will then have the antecedents of the applicant checked up and if the same are found in order, he would be eligible for the grant of the licence which may then be given to him by the Deputy Commissioner in his discretion according to any relevant rules."

Here again, it will be seen that the decision was only with regard to permission being granted to typists to work in the court compound and not for the installation of any photostat machines.

What, thus, emerges is that no rules or guidelines appear to have been framed for the grant of permission for setting up photostat machines in the Court compounds in District Gurdaspur.

It is also pertinent to note that in his return the Deputy Commissioner has not sought to justify his refusal of permission to the petitioner to install a photostate machine on any ground whatsoever except to assert his power and authority to do so. Arbitrariness, in the exercise of any such power cannot indeed be countenanced and, therefore, we hereby quash the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner of August 25, 1992 (Annexure P4 declining the permission to the petitioner to install and photostat machine in the Khokha of her husband Om Parkash Gupta in the premises of the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pathankot and hereby direct the Deputy Commissioner to permit her to do so.

We also take this opportunity of calling upon the Deputy Commissioner as also the State Government to frame rules governing the grant of permission for installation of photostat machines in Court compounds. Any rules or regulations that may be made, in this behalf, shall, undoubtedly also govern the permission granted to the petitioner for installation of photostat machine including payment of any rent, licence fee or other charges, in respect thereof, as may be prescribed.

This writ petition is consequently hereby accepted in these terms with Rs. 1,000/ as costs.

A copy of this judgment is directed to be sent to the Chief Secretary, Punjab as also the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, for information and necessary action.