Dismissed

Amarjit Singh Rana v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Apr 2013CWP/7105/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought approval for allotment of a petrol pump site based on a 1996 auction won decades earlier. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that neither compelling circumstances exist nor would allotment be justifiable given the steep rise in property value, citing a Supreme Court decision regarding fresh auctions. The instant petition is dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's prayer for mandamus to direct approval of the site allotment was denied.

Amarjit Singh Rana Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No. 7105 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 7105 of 2013

¶5

Date of decision: 3.4.2013

Amarjit Singh Rana

..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the State Government to approve Resolution No. 367 dated 4.8.2006 (Annexure P-5) said to have been passed by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, for allotment of a petrol pump site him on the basis of a public auction held more than 17 years before on 15.3.1996. The petitioner was the successful bidder in the said auction and gave highest bid of ` 45 lacs though had deposited 1/4^th of the bid amount only. The auction was not accepted by the Trust and it cancelled the same immediately vide Resolution dated 27.3.1996 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner challenged the above-stated Resolution of the Trust in a Civil

¶15

CWP No. 7105 of 2013 -2-

¶16

Suit which was decreed. It was held that the resolution of cancelling the auction was passed by the Chairman and not the Trust. The said decision was upheld by the First Appellate Court as well.

¶17

The Improvement Trust, thereafter again declined to accept petitioner's highest bid and rejected his claim. This time the petitioner came to this Court in CWP No. 262 of 2005, which was allowed vide order dated 2.5.2006 (Annexure P-4) on the technical plea that petitioner's claim was rejected in violation of principles of natural justice, namely, without issuing any show-cause notice. However, liberty was granted to the Improvement Trust to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶18

Thereafter, the Trust is said to have passed Resolution No. 367 dated 4.8.2006 (Annexure P-5) recommending allotment of petrol pump site in favour of the petitioner. Since the Government has not approved the said resolution till date, the petitioner has initiated this third round of litigation.

¶19

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and gone through the record.

¶20

In our considered view, neither there are compelling circumstances for this Court to direct the State Government to consider the resolution said to have been passed by the Improvement Trust in the year 2006, nor the allotment of petrol pump site to the petitioner, at this stage on the basis of an auction held 17 years back can be justified either in law or equity. There is a steep hike in the value of commercial properties and should there be a afresh auction, the site will fetch

¶21

CWP No. 7105 of 2013 -3-

¶22

manifold higher price. The petitioner though succeeded before the Civil Court and again before this Court but every time on technical grounds only which should not work to the disadvantage of the State/public exchequer. We are quite sanguine that if the subject property is put to a fresh auction in which the petitioner would undoubtedly be entitled to participate, it will fetch a much higher price as compared to the highest bid given by the petitioner in the year 1996. In this regard, we are forfeited by the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 16416 of 2007, (Maninder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others) decided on 23.9.2011.

¶23

In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed.

¶24

Dasti.

¶25

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE April 03, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) rishu JUDGE

Amarjit Singh Rana v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjit Singh Rana v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lachhmi Devi & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Bichha Ram & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ram Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ut of Chandigarh and Ors. Vs Arun Kumar

Gurmahavir Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sonu @ Vikas Vs State of Haryana