ASHWANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing public notice dated 1.7.2008 ( Annexure P.2) whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal- respondent No. 3 has invited the interested persons for auction for the site of photo stat machine in the Mini Secretariat, Sector 12, Karnal opposite the main market. When the matter came up for consideration on 9.7.2008 the Division Bench had directed that respondent may continue with the auction which was scheduled to be held on 10.7.2008 but the same was not to be finalised. The principal ground of challenge is that the afore-mentioned site is unauthorised as it does not find mention in the original lay out plan.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal- respondent No. 3 it has been stated that according to the District Administration Manual facilities of Canteen, Form Shop, Photostat, PCO and Cycle Stand etc. has to be furnished to the public at large. Respondent No. 3 has quoted Kutuchery Compound Fund Rules, 1987 (for brevity, 'the Rules') in support of their assertion. It has further been asserted that the instant petition is an abuse of the process of the Court with a view to grab the public money. It has been clarified that the petitioner himself in the year 2007-08 has taken the Photostat and Form counter on lease. He is alleged to have withheld the payment of Rs. 15,500/- which is balance amount of Photostat lease on the completion of financial year 2007-08 resulting in initiation of legal action against him (annexure R/1). The respondent is recovering the amount as per law. It has also been highlighted that the petitioner runs a photostat shop in the show room which is just opposite to the Mini Secretariat whereas the Administration has to provide the facility of photostat to the public at large at cheap rates as thousands of people visit the offices and Court daily which are adjacent to the Mini Secretariat. The booth is a temporary structure to provide facilities in accordance with the Administration Manual. Respondent No. 3 has also taken the stand that a communication has already been addressed to the Chief Administrator, Haryana to earmark space for common facilities (Annexure R./2). It has further been pointed out that the petitioner could have participated in the auction.

(3.) THERE is well known phrase known as damnum sine injuria which means that there may be an injury inflicted without any act of injustice or violation of legal right. The maxim was applied in England in the famous case of Gloucestershire Grammar School (1410) Y.B. ii Hen 4, to 47 Pl 21; 36 Digest (Repl) 252 where in competition another school was opened. The claim made by the previous school was rejected because opening of a new school did not infringe any of his legal right. The aforementioned prnciples have also been applied by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, (1976)1 SCC 671. Merely becase the petitioner has a photostat shop outside the Mini Sectt. does not debar respondent No. 3 to open another photostat shop by inviting applications. Moreover, the petitioner himself had been doing the same business in the temporary booth set up by respondent No. 3. We find that it would advance the public interest by providing facility which is otherwise obligatory on the administration.