ARUN PRAKASH Vs. JAMMU DEV AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that his Unit, namely, M/s. Everest Service Station stands registered with the Industries Department since 1985 and was thus entitled to allotment of one and half Kanals of land for establishing the said Unit. Accordingly, he applied for allotment of land to respondent No. 1. However, while his application was pending, respondent No. 1 made allotment of land measuring 50' x 100' in favour of respondent No. 4 for running a Service Station at Transport Nagar, Jammu vide order dated 24-8-1988. During the pendency of the petition, the respondents, it is also alleged, made further allotments in favour of respondents 5 to 8. The petitioner challenges the allotment of land in favour of respondents 4 to 8 on the ground that it has been made without following any criteria in illegal and arbitrary manner. He also seeks a direction against the official respondents to give him similar treatment by allotting land in Transport Nagar, Jammu.

(2.) In the counter filed on behalf of the official respondents, it is stated that the petitioner had submitted incomplete application for allotment of land in the year 1989 by which time the plots had already been allotted. They have also stated that the petitioner was not eligible for allotment because he was not carrying on transport business at all. The land, according to them, was allotted to those who were already in Transport business and satisfied the eligibility criteria.The private respondents have in their counter stated that they were carrying on business in Ware House, Jammu which was to be vacated and as such were allotted alternate site in the Transport Nagar, Jammu for carrying on their business.

(3.) Mrs. Surinder Kour, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the official respondents had adopted the policy of pick and choose in making the allotment for which no definite policy/criteria was followed. The allotments in favour of the private respondents, therefore, according to her, is illegal and liable to be quashed. She has also prayed that the petitioner be allotted a plot in the same manner as in case of others.