Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.25543 of 2012 Date of Decision : December 20, 2012 Kiran Bala .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.
Present : Mr.G.S.Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner.”
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
--- Surya Kant, J.
(Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the allotment of 500 square yards plots made in favour of respondent Nos.3 & 4 under the reserved category of physically handicapped persons (ought have been descripted as differently abled persons).in the Aeorcity, SAS Nagar Mohali, as also a mandamus to direct the official respondents to allot one of those plots to her as she is at No.1 in the waiting list.
2].The residential Scheme known as 'Aerocity' was floated by Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (in short 'GMADA) in the year 2010-11 and as per the Information Brochure (Annexure P-22/A).3% plots of different sizes were reserved for Physically Handicapped/Blind persons.
There were total 19 plots of 500 square yards meant for the said reserved category.
It was further prescribed that “applicant under reserved category must be a domicile/resident of Punjab.
The applicant will have to submit Domicile Certificate/Residence Certificate issued by the concerned Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate of Punjab Government or any officer authorized by the Punjab Government.
Condition No.(vii) is CWP No.25543 of 2012 [2].also relevant and reads as follows:- “...vii) In case of Physically handicapped/blind, the applicant should be 40% or above disabled or 100% blind to be eligible under the scheme.
A self attested photocopy of certificate issued by the concerned Civil Surgeon of the District should be attached...”
3].It is not in dispute that the allotments were made by draw of lots in which both the private respondents were successful and consequently allotted plots measuring 500 square yards each.
The petitioner was partially successful and placed at No.1 in the waiting list.
4].The petitioner made a complaint to the authorities, inter-alia, alleging that respondent Nos.3 & 4 (Brij Mohan Verma and Bhushan Kumar, respectively) were No.'residents' of State of Punjab and in view of the eligibility condition reproduced above, they were ineligible for the subject allotment in the reserved category of Physically Handicapped persons.
To cut the matter short, the complaints sent by the father of the petitioner were considered at different levels and were repeatedly rejected.
The petitioner's father, however, relentlessly continued with his complaints of couRs.with added allegations against the officer(s) who rejected his previous complaint(s).The respondent-authorities, therefore, placed the petitioner's complaint firstly before the Scrutinizing Committee who summoned respondents No.3 & 4 and asked them to explain how were they claiming themselves to be the domiciles of Punjab State when they are permanent residents of New Delhi and Fatehabad (Haryana).respectively.
The matter was then taken up by the Discrepancy Committee headed by the Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA who found that the documents given by respondent No.3 (Brij Mohan Verma) were correct and he was fully eligible for allotment of plot in the reserved category.
The petitioner's father then made yet another complaint on 5.7.2011 alongwith documents depicting respondent No.3 as a permanent resident of Delhi having voter card as well as CWP No.25543 of 2012 [3].registration of his car at Delhi address.
The petitioner's father also made allegations against the Additional Chief Administrator, hence the matter was put up before the Chief Administrator, GMADA, who after going through the complaints and having obtained legal opinion from the office of Advocate General, Punjab as well as a senior counsel, rejected those complaints.
5].The matter, however, did not come to an end as in a fresh complaint, the petitioner's father targeted the Chief Administrator, GMADA too, leaving little choice with the authorities except to put up his complaint before the Executive Committee of GMADA headed by none-else then the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab.
The said Committee also called for the record, perused it and arrived at a definite conclusion that as a matter of fact the third respondent is originally and permanently resident of Mohalla Kali Rauna, Khanna, District Ludhiana (Punjab) and upheld the allotment in his favour.
It has also been found that the third respondent joined the service in Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (for short 'the BHEL) at Noida as a Graduate Operator on 13.12.1967 and worked at different places till March, 1995 and obviously had no choice to serve or stay in the State of Punjab.
6].The Executive Committee of GMADA headed by the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab also summoned and perused the records of BHEL wherein respondent No.3 had disclosed his permanent address of Punjab State, referred to above.
These reasons have been duly communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.4.2012 (Annexure P-31).7].Still dissatisfied, the petitioner has approached this Court.
8].We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and gone through various documents.
9].In our considered view, no interference with the impugned orders passed by the respondent-authorities in rejecting CWP No.25543 of 2012 [4].the petitioner's complaint or in upholding the allotment in favour of private respondents in the reserved category of differently abled persons, is called for.
We say so for the reason that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot assume the role of an Appellate Forum to re-appraise the documents/material taken into consideration by different authorities while arriving at concurrent conclusions.
It is too easy to make allegations against one or the other officers but the petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate as to how and why the Estate Officer, Additional Chief Administrator, Chief Administrator, GMADA and finally the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab would favour respondent No.3 who at one point of time was a small scale employee in a Central Government Organization.
The fact of the matter is that the third respondent has been found to be a permanent resident of Punjab State though the source of survival compelled him to serve outside the State of Punjab, which cannot be a disqualification for him to retrace his roots and settle down in the State of Punjab.
10].As regard to respondent No.4, the petitioner does not appear to be serious in complaining against him as the SDO (Civil).Mansa has categorically certified that he is a permanent resident of Mansa, Tehsil Mansa, District Bathinda (at the relevant time).11].Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on th e decision in Chandigarh Housing Board and another versus Gurmit Singh, AIR 200.SC 58.to contend that the private respondents do not satisfy the ingredients of expression 'Domicile' as neither they have a permanent home not they ever intended to live permanently or indefinitely in the State of Punjab.
The petitioner, in our considered view, can draw no benefit out of the cited decision as both the private respondents have been actually found to be permanent residents of State of Punjab though stationed outside for the compelling reasons.
12].In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the petitioner ought to have reconciled with her fate in the CWP No.25543 of 2012 [5].draw of lots instead of launching unending tirade against respondent Nos.3 & 4 who by virtue of their sheer luck were successful in the draw of lots.
13].Dismissed.
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE $ December 20, 2012 (R.P.NAGRATH) Mohinder JUDGE