VIJAY Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of R. T. P. E. No.215 of 1998 and U. T. P. E. No.235 of 1998, as common question arises for consideration in both the complaints. The facts referred to in the complaint relating to R. T. P. E. No.215 of 1998, are that the petitioners therein are vegetable vendors carrying on their business in the vegetable market for last about 7 years. A survey was conducted in the year 1992- 93 for allotment of alternative sites for the applicants by Shri Ravi Mathur, the then C. E. O. of the Authority and platforms in the size of 4x2.50 metres were constructed for allotment to the applicants in the same locality which are still in existence and have not been allotted so far. The respondent published a General Notice in the newspaper that the Authority is considering the names of the vegetable, fruit, juice and pan vendors who are already in this business in 19 and 20 Sectors crossing and in Sector 27 under high tension wire for allotment. We need not give further details except to the extent that the Notification was issued by the respondent authority fixing a date for draw of the platforms in Sectors 19, 20 and 27 which was conducted on 28th July, 1998 at 11.30 a. m. in Indira Gandhi Memorial Hall, Sector-6. A copy of the said notification has been placed on record. The applicants participated in the said draw of the lots and they were given their platform numbers immediately after the draw of lots. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the application may be read as under : "7. That the applicants participated in the said draw of the lots and they were given their platform numbers immediately after the draw of the lots. The applicants were given platform Nos.40, 42, 9, 44, 47-B, 19, 18, 29, 20, 7, 47, 32, 46, 2, 36, 6, 27, 47a, 13, 21,14,1, and 24 respectively in the order of Sr. No. mentioned in the present application.8. That even after the completion of the draw of the lots, three surveys were made. One by Tehsildar with Naib Tehsildar, the other by Patwari and the last by Shri R. K. Goyal, Sh. R. C. Lal, Sh. B. B. Malik and Sh. Rajender Kumar, for the reasons best known to them. Generally no survey is made after completion of the draw of lots. "

(2.) It is submitted that though the applicants were successful in the draw of lots, even then they were being deprived of allotment of the platforms. It is, however, stated by the learned Counsel for the applicants in R. T. P. E. No.215 of 1998 that after filing of the present complaint all the applicants except applicant at serial No.6 i. e. Ashok Kumar S/o Sohan Beer Singh have been allotted platforms. The respondent authority has allotted platforms to applicants 1 to 5 and 7 to 24 respectively.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that this Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the grievance of the applicants, as the appropriate remedy will be to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievances. We need not exclude our jurisdiction merely on this technical ground as on its own showing the respondent authority has already granted relief to the applicants in R. T. P. E. No.215 of 1998 except to the applicant at serial No.6. To relegate this applicant for the remedy before the Civil Court or any other authority will not be in the interest of justice. Further it is contended that the respondent authority has taken a policy decision on 2nd November, 1998 and 15th September, 1998 respectively and the applicant Shri Ashok Kumar has been excluded from the allotment on the basis of the decision taken in these policies. Paragraph 1 of the alleged first policy decision states that Shri Ashok Kumar, son of Shri Sohan Beer Singh has not been given the platform as his father Shri Sohan Beer Singh and brother Shri Kabul Singh have already been allotted platforms and more than two platforms cannot be allotted to one family.