JANAK RAJ Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have a bunch of 17 petitions. The petitioners in 11 of these cases except in CWP No. 6336 to 6339, 6341 and 6342 of 1999 are aggrieved by the public notice dated May 6, 1999 by which they were directed to vacate the land and remove the immovable items. The petitioners pray that the notice be quashed. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the facts in CWP No. 6344 of 1999. These may be briefly noticed.

(2.) THE petitioner alleges that it is engaged in the business of marble on Mohali road Sectors 51-52, Chandigarh. It made a representation to the Adviser, U.T. Administration on September 11, 1998 for allotment of a site for doing the business. The representation was submitted through the President of the Marble Traders Association. In response to the representation, the President was informed vide letter dated October 7, 1998 that the request for allotment of a site for marble market is under consideration. The petitioner alleges that despite this communication, a seven days public notice was pasted on the Notice Board on May 6, 1999 calling upon it to vacate the site. It is alleged that the action is discriminatory as others who are similarly placed have been allotted sites while no allotment has been made to the petitioner. On these premises, the petitioner prays that the impugned notice of May 6, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition be quashed.

(3.) MR . G.C. Dhuriwala, counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Administration has acted in violation of Article 14 as it has allotted plots for different trades and to marble dealers by following a policy of pick and choose. It has been further submitted that the petitioners were in occupation of the land prior to the acquisition and that in accordance with the scheme prepared by the Chandigarh Administration, the petitioners in all the cases are entitled to the allotment of sites. The claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.