Smt. Pushpa Devi v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Present: Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Naresh Parbhakar, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) -.-

The writ petition contains a challenge to a revised site plan made by the 2nd respondent for housing 383 shopping booths in SAS Nagar, Janta Market, Phase-IIIB at Mohali. There had been an intervention through a direction from this Hon'ble Court in C.W.P. No.8783 of 2000 when the Punjab Urban Development Authority was directed to ensure that there was sufficient vacant space provided between the new shopping complex and the residential houses, which were immediately adjoining the market. It appears that there was a fire accident recently in 2007 that ravaged the temporary C.W.P. No.8861of 2009 -2- sheds of the Rehri Market and also caused substantial damage to life and property.

The petitioner was one of the previous occupants in the market and as per a stated policy, the persons who had been previously doing business in the market were also assured of allotments of booths in the market. The number of persons, who were identified as eligible were originally 353 persons and subsequently, the numbers swelled to 369. Keeping in view the direction of this Hon'ble Court in C.W.P. No.8783 of 2000, the Municipal Committee had passed a resolution to provide for 353 rehri sites instead of 383 on 31.01.2002. Subsequently a plan had also been drawn up for housing 353 rehri sites. When the administration came under the 2nd respondent, they have now again drawn up a plan increasing the numbers from 353 to 383. It has an immediate consequence of reducing the space between the residential houses and the boundary of the market and still further reduces the pavements, which have been demarcated between the rows of shops. The petitioner has already applied for an allotment and also paid earnest money of Rs.50,000/- and he has been allotted a corner booth as per the pre-revised plan.

The cause for the writ petition is his own apprehension that in the revised plan when the allotments are again drawn up, he will not be given the same facility of a corner shop and also that the safety concerns which have been expressed through the writ petition would be compromised and the space between the residential houses and the booths would be reduced to less than 10 feet. The C.W.P. No.8861of 2009 -3- petitioner also has an objection that the increase in number of booths from 369 to 383 is arbitrary and when the eligible number of allottees have already been determined as 369, there is no reason for increasing the number of booths to 383 and reducing the sizes of the shops as well as the space between the residential houses and the shops.

The statement filed by the 2nd respondent admits the fact that the persons, who were found eligible were 369 but states that when the District Town Planner was required to make out a plan to accommodate the increased number from 353 to 369, he had provided in his drawing for 383 booths, by the fact that a homogenous size of sites within the given area made possible the accommodation of 383 booths. I do not think that the petitioner could have any grievance about the number of booths so long as it assured him of a firm allotment of his own booth and so long as the safety concerns are fully addressed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that even in the revised plan, there has been no attempt to reduce the space between the residential houses and the booths to any width less than 10 feet. The copy of the plan, which is produced before me does not itself provide to me any clear indication of the exact space that has been reserved but it is indeed needless for me even to emphasise that any plan that the 2nd respondent draws up and brings into existence the booths shall conform to the direction of this Hon'ble Court in C.W.P. No.8783 of 2000 both as regards the safety as well as the specifications relating to the minimum space that shall be kept vacant referred to above C.W.P. No.8861of 2009 -4- and assure to the persons in the residential colony a right of privacy by not making any opening at the back side of the booths.