Petitioner challenging allotment of plots under 15% reservation for Scheduled Caste/Tribe, alleging separate draw for Tribe was due to delay in filing writ, petition dismissed due to lack of ST status.
None. Writ petition dismissed for lack of locus standi and lateness.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.18765 of 2010
[ 1 ]
::::::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.18765 of 2010 Date of decision:01.05.2012
Mahavir Kumar
...Petitioner
Vs.
Greater Authority Mohali Development Authority & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjeet S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for Mr. H.S.Brar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. *****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
As per the case set up by the petitioner, the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority [for short “GMADA”] offered 4000 freehold residential plots in Aerocity, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, of various sizes in various categories, including 15% reservation for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner is alleged to have applied on 03.07.2010, vide his application form No.148126, for a plot of 300 Sq. Yards in the 15% reserved quota of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe,
CWP No.18765 of 2010
[ 2 ]
::::::
along with a demand draft No.986659 of `3,60,000/-. It is alleged that there were two applicants in the category of Scheduled Tribe for 300 Sq. Yards plot, but in the common draw of lots of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, all the plots were allotted to the Scheduled Caste applicants despite the fact that there were a total of 110 plots in the said category of 300 Sq. Yards, for which there should have been separate draw of lots for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories. It is alleged that had a separate draw been held for two categories, the petitioner would have definitely been successful as there would have been 55 plots for the Scheduled Tribe category, being half of the total of 110 plots under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category, and there were only two applicants in the Scheduled Tribe category. It is further alleged that the petitioner belongs to Vimukat Jati, which has been declared a Scheduled Tribe, as per certificate dated 20.09.1990 (Annexure P-1) issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur HQ Abohar and certificate dated 25.05.1992 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Abohar (Annexure P-2). It is further alleged that as the said draw of lots has not been held categorywise, a valuable right of the petitioner has been infringed and hence, prayer has been made by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the list of successful applicants for the plots of the size of 300 Sq. Yards in the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
CWP No.18765 of 2010 [ 3 ]
::::::
Tribe category issued on 30.09.2010 (Annexure P-8) and for a writ in the nature of mandamus , directing the respondents to formulate a fresh scheme pertaining to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category in all sizes, as the respondents have not made a distinction between Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories.
After issuance of notice of motion, respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed their written statement in which it is averred that the petitioner claims that he belongs to “Kuchhand”caste, which has been declared to be Scheduled Tribe by the Government of Punjab vide Annexures P-1 and P-2. Whereas on verification from the Social Welfare Department, Government of Punjab, it has been found that there is no such caste in the State of Punjab which has been notified as a Scheduled Tribe. It is also alleged that even “Kuchhband” caste does not figure in list of castes notified as Scheduled Tribes. It is further averred that the writ petition is highly belated as the petitioner had applied for plot on 03.07.2010, the draw of lots was held on 30.09.2010 but the writ petition was filed on 13.10.2010, when the entire process was over.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record from which we have found that as per Annexure R-1, which is the list of Scheduled Castes, the caste “Kuchhand” is not mentioned and the same is also not a part of the list of Backward Class as at item
CWP No.18765 of 2010 [ 4 ] ::::::
No.47, the caste is “Kuchband”. Even if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the caste “Kuchhand” and “Kuchhband” are the same, even then it does not improve the case of the petitioner as the said caste is a Backward Class and not a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Punjab, whereas, the brochure (Annexure P-4) provides 15% reservation for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes. As the petitioner does not belong to a Scheduled Tribe, in the State of Punjab and the plots are not reserved for a Backward Class, he has no right to challenge the list of successful candidates.
In view of above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
| (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE |
|
|---|---|
| 01.05.2012 vinod* |
(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category in Punjab for reservation benefits.
Whether writ petition was filed within limitation period after draw of lots.
Whether petitioner has locus standi to challenge allotment list as non-ST.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MAHAVIR KUMAR
GREATER MOHALI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
RAJIVE BHALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
