MANPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letters dated 15.2.2016 (Annexure P-4) and dated 4.2.2016 (Annexure P-5) issued by respondent No.2 cancelling the Verka Milk Booth allot to him on rent vide allotment letter dated 1.2.2016 (Annexure P-2). Further, directions have been sought to respondent No.2 to restore the allotment of the Verka Milk Booth to the petitioner and for restraining respondent No.2 from allotting the said booth to any other person.

(2.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant petition as narrated therein may be noticed. Respondent No.3 wrote a letter dated 30.1.2014 (Annexure P-1) to respondent No.2 for establishing a Verka Milk Booth at New Amritsar on the request of the petitioner. In pursuance thereto, respondent No.2 called for a report from the Technical Branch for availability of land for allotment. After completion of necessary formalities, respondent No.2 had allot a Verka Milk Booth to the petitioner on rent at Bhai Gurdass Ji Nagar Scheme of the Improvement Trust at Amritsar vide allotment letter dated 1.2.2016 (Annexure P-2). As per the terms and conditions of Annexure P-2, the petitioner was asked to deposit one month's advance rent along with three months' rent as security amount with respondent No.2. The petitioner deposited 8500.00, i.e. one month's advance rent along with three months' rent as security with respondent No.2 vide application dated 5.2.2016 (Annexure P-3). Vide letter dated 15.2.2016 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner was informed that the said Verka Milk Booth allot in his name has been cancelled vide letter dated 6.2.2016 and the demand draft was returned back. Neither the letter dated 6.2.2016 was received by the petitioner nor a copy thereof was supplied to him by respondent No.2. Further, no such letter was issued as 6.2.2016 was holiday in the office of respondent No.2 being Saturday. The petitioner approached respondent No.3 who had handed over a copy of the letter dated 4.2.2016 (Annexure P-5) issued by respondent No.2 informing respondent No.3 regarding cancellation of Verka Milk Booth in the name of the petitioner due to administrative reasons. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.