CWP No. 18445 of 2009 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No. 18445 of 2009
Date of decision :December 9, 2009
*****
Santosh Saini
............petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
...........respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
*****
Present: Mr. Ranjan Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner.
*****
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Challenge in the present writ petition is to Clause 5(b) of
“Allotment/Transfer of Built-up Booths in any Sector on lease/Hire
Purchae Basis in Chandigarh Rules, 1991”. The impugned Rule
reads as under:
“Rule 5:- The Competent Authority
may allot a built up booth in the market in any sector
to a person if:
(a) he holds a valid hand cart licence or
hawkers licence as well as a driving licence and
CWP No. 18445 of 2009 :2:
owns a hand cart or a behngi/khoncha/phari on the
date of issue of the notification or on the date as
may be prescribed for the purpose by the
competent authority.
(b) he does not own a commercial
site/shop in Union Territory of Chandigarh, Mohali
or Panchkula in his own name or in the name of any
member of his family dependent upon him and the
total family income from all sources does not extend
Rs.7500/- per mensem (Rupees seven thousand
and five hundred only) for which he shall have to
furnish an affidavit duly attested by the Executive
Magistrate, Chandigarh to this effect.
(c) he does not suffer from any
contagious disease for which he shall furnish
medical certificate of fitness”
The petitioner sought allotment of a built up booth being a
valid hand cart licence holder. Admittedly, the husband of the
petitioner is employed and his gross salary is exceeding Rs.18000/-.
p.m. The grievance of the petitioner is that the ceiling of family
income at Rs.7500/- per mensem is arbitrary, without any reasonable
nexus with the objective to be achieved i.e rehabilitation of hand cart
holders and therefore the said clause is illegal and liable to be set
aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an order
passed by the Assistant Estate Officer on 17.11.2008 in the case of
CWP No. 18445 of 2009 :3:
one D.C Jain wherein the purpose of the scheme was delineated as
to provide a permanent source of livelihood to the licence holders by
providing built up booths in rehri markets subject to their fulfilling all
the eligibility conditions. It is thus contended that by denying the
allotment of booth, the source of sustenance by users of handcart, is
denial to the petitioner. Thus such Rule is arbitrary and not
sustainable.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner but do
not find any illegality in the impugned Rule. The condition of family
income has nexus with the objective to be achieved. The State
largesse should not be conferred on the person who is already
possessed of sufficient means of sustaining himself and his family
members. The State privilege can be conferred on a person who is
deprived of minimum means of sustenance and therefore, the
condition that family income should not exceed Rs.7500/- per
mensem cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable which can be
said to be violative of any vested right of the petitioner. By such
condition, none of fundamental rights of the petitioner is infringed as
the petitioner has a right to carry on the business subject to the
reasonable conditions which may be imposed by the respondents.
In view thereof, we do not find ground to interfere in this
petition. Dismissed.
( HEMANT GUPTA )
JUDGE
December 9, 2009 ( JORA SINGH )
ritu JUDGE