BUDHA MAL Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The four petitioners allege that they have been using Hand-Carts for hawking articles for sale in Sector 23, Chandigarh, and they hold valid licences for plying these carts. On August 26, 1971 certain provisions issued by the Chief Commissioner were published in the Chandigarh Administration Gazette Extraordinary. (Copy of the same is Annexure 'A' to the writ petition). They are styled as 'rules' and captioned as 'Chandigarh Allotment of Stalls in Day Markets Rules, 1971'. The conditions for allotment stated there are :-

(2.) In pursuance of these rules, the petitioners and respondents 3 to 50 as also some others, made applications to the Estate Officer for allotment of premises for stationing Hand-Cart-Stalls. It is common ground that there were 48 plots for these so-called stalls, which have been allotted to respondents 3 to 50. The four petitioners have not been allotted any of these stalls. The petitioners allege that they have older licences than respondents 3 to 50, yet they have been ignored in this allotment. They further aver that they had made applications prior in time than respondents 3 to 50 for this allotment. They also allege that they had been parking their Hand-Carts in the Day Market Area and had thus fully qualified under rule 4 of the said Rules for the allotment. The allotments made to respondents 3 to 50 are being challenged mainly on these grounds by the learned counsel for the petitioners :-

(3.) In the written statement filed by Respondents 1 and 2, a preliminary objection has been taken that the impugned rules are not statutory in character, but are merely executive instructions issued for the guidance of subordinate officers by the Chief Commissioner; that no legal or constitutional right of the petitioners has been violated and consequently, they have no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. It is further pleaded that although the four petitioners had taken out Hand-Cart Licences in their names, Banarsi Dass, petitioner No. 3, did not carry out the business of hawking articles on a Hand-Cart and that he along with Budha Mal, petitioner No. 1, was having a regular Kela Store which was previously housed in Sector 23 but is now housed in Sector 36. It is added that Dalip Chand Jain and Baldev Raj, petitioners, do not carry on their business in Sector 23 but in Sectors 20 and 11, respectively, and, as such, they do not satisfy the tests of eligibility provided in rule 4. It is further explained that a meeting of the Sub-Committee of Chandigarh Advisory Committee held on September 29, 1969, proposed the construction of 500 stalls for stationing Rehriwalas. (Copy of the details of the proposal is Annexure R-1 to the writ petition). The proposal was finalised in a meeting of the Officers Committee held on December 15, 1969. While stalls were being constructed in Sector 23, a survey was made on March 5, 1970 and March 24, 1971 of the Rehriwalas who were parking their Rehris in Sector 23. As a result of these surveys, a tentative list of 103 Rehriwalas found carrying on their business of hawking articles in Sector 23, was prepared. The names of petitioners 2, 3 and 4 did not find place in this list. This tentative list was published in the parking place of Sector 23 for inviting objections and claims. Petitioners 1, 2 and 4 filed objections/claims. All those objections/claims, including those of the petitioners, were decided after hearing the objectors, in the first instance by the Assistant Estate Officer (copy of his decision is Annexure R-3 to the writ petition). Budha Mal, claiming himself to be the Chairman of the Milap Rehri Union, sent telegrams to different authorities complaining that the Assistant Estate Officer did not give them a proper hearing. Thereupon, the Estate Officer re-heard the objectors/claimants and took a fresh decision (Copy Annexure R-4). The final list of eligible Rehriwalas was thus prepared. Sixty-eight persons were included in the final list. Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 did not qualify. Forty-eight persons were ultimately selected for allotment according to the priority of dates of issue of Hand-Cart Licences, out of them, as only 48 stalls had been constructed. Among those 48 persons, priority in the matter of allotment was arranged according to the dates on which they had applied for allotment. It is thus asserted that the entire procedure followed in these allotments was quite fair, and parity of treatment was ensured to all the candidates, including the petitioners.