ANITA GUPTA Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter here concerns that installation of a photo-state machine in the compound of the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pathankot.

(2.) 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 P-3) 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 P-4) declined this permission.

(3.) 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.