Nalanda Elementary School and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

K. Kannan, J

C.M. is allowed. Affidavit taken on record. In CWP Nos. 18840 and 6690 of 2010 the issue is one of the entitlement of the respective petitioners to be allotted shops in the newly constructed complex as a measure of fairness to persons who had been previously occupying shops and places of various dimensions within the Durgiana Mandir Complex and who were required to be evicted to make possible the beautification of the temple complex. At a previous hearing when the complaint was that in the manner of reallocation there is no transparent policy adopted, I had sought for details as to how the reallocation was to be done. In response to the directions, the Amritsar Improvement Trust has filed an affidavit through its Chairman.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP No. 6690 of 2010 that he was running an industry in an extent of 1100 sq. yards, but several other persons had been in occupation of much smaller shops and area are allotted bigger or shops of equal size, with no weightage at all given to the size of shops that were held. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents point out that all the shops which are going to be constructed and intended for allotment are more or less of the same size and the scheme is only to accommodate all of them and it is not possible to make proportionate size of shops for allotments. The corner shops in the place are a little larger and in the manner of allotment the respondents would follow a policy of draw of lots so that if there are smaller variations in the size, it cannot be complained that there was any partiality practiced towards the allottees.

In the distribution of shops by way of re allotments, the policy of adjusting them by draw of lots is a prevalent judicially accepted prevalent practice and I will find no reason to suspect the bona fides of the fairness of such a decision. It will be irrelevant that persons having shops or places of various sizes in the existing temple complex are now coming by a different dispensation of being provided shops of equal dimensions. It shall be improper to direct that the new allotments must also be made of varying sizes. Uniformity in sizes go for better aesthetics. Therefore, I would find that no special privilege should be given to any tenant or any occupier by the fact that one shop keeper was occupying a larger portion but he comes by the same size as a smaller shop keeper in the new dispensation. If all the newly adjusted tenants come by shops of the same dimensions no prejudice should be said to be caused.

Counsel for the Durgiana Mandir has a grievance that status of the petitioner in CWP No. 6690 of 2010 itself is not admitted. I do no want the writ petition to be detained on a consideration of a disputed issue. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner had been inducted as a tenant initially. The allotment shall be done of all persons including the petitioner in CWP No. 6690 of 2010. On the issue of status if there exists any independent proceedings, that shall be continued and the rights of parties will be determined elsewhere. This writ petition adjudges only fairness of the scheme of allotments and that the shop keepers who have been evicted or who would be affected shall be readjusted shall be done by allocation of shops by draw of lots in the manner admitted by the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Amritsar Improvement Trust.

The counsel for the petitioners contend that they shall not be evicted till the new constructions are made and delivered to them. The counsel for the Mandir point out, and in my view correctly, that the new shops are not constructed else where but in an organized fashion in the very same place after securing their eviction and demolishing the existing structures. The only protection that could be given in that the Improvement Trust shall finalize the construction plan, draw up a time schedule for beginning and completing the construction, secure allocation of funds for the projects and publish the same as the location in the notice board at the Mandir Complex before securing eviction. The publication is to ensure transparency of the decision making and to bring a sense of fair play to all the affected parties.

The petitioner in CWP No. 9557 of 2010 is a School and the counsel says that he is satisfied about the allotment proposed for the School. The same is recorded. All the writ petitions are disposed of.