Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1262 (PNJ)

Gurudwara Har Darshan Sahib v. State of Punjab

2013-09-18

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JASPAL SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.: - Prayer in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the letter of intent dated 23.10.2009, Annexure P.5 issued in favour of respondent No.4 - Chief Khalsa Diwan, GT Road, Near Rigo Bridge, Amritsar, allotting it a religious site measuring 1000 square yards in Sector 48-C, Mohali, being in violation of the terms and conditions of the brochure, Annexure P.2. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. The petitioner is a religious/social body duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Shri Kulbir Inder Singh Mann is its President. It is performing various religious and social activities for the general welfare, harmony and brotherhood of the residents of Mohali. In September 2007, respondent No.2 – Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) issued an advertisement inviting applications for religious sites for setting up of temple, Gurdwara, Masjid etc. on leasehold basis in Urban Estate, SAS Nagar. The scheme opened on 14.9.2007 and was to be closed on 15.10.2007. As per the conditions of the advertisement, Annexure P.3, the allotment of sites was to be determined on the basis of the population of the concerned religious community in the area. It was further provided that allotment of the land to religious bodies was to be made if there was a demand by the local residents and there was no religious place of the concerned religion in that area. The petitioner applied for allotment of a two kanal site for Gurudwara earmarked for Sector 48-C, Mohali vide application form dated 13.10.2007 alongwith all the necessary documents as required. Besides the petitioner, two other institutions namely Chief Khalsa Diwan, Amritsar, respondent No.4 and one Chadha Motor Transport Charitable Trust Society, Amritsar also applied for allotment of Gurudwara site earmarked in Sector 48- C, Mohali. Vide letter dated 1.9.2008, Annexure P.4, the petitioner was called for interview on 16.9.2008 alongwith all the relevant documents. The petitioner through its authorised representative appeared before the Scrutiny Committee/Allotment committee on the said date. The Scrutiny committee instead issued letter of intent dated 23.10.2009 for allotment of religious site in favour of respondent No.4. According to the petitioner, the application of respondent No.4 was incomplete since no bank statement as required was attached with it. The petitioner through its authorised representative appeared before the Scrutiny Committee/Allotment committee on the said date. The Scrutiny committee instead issued letter of intent dated 23.10.2009 for allotment of religious site in favour of respondent No.4. According to the petitioner, the application of respondent No.4 was incomplete since no bank statement as required was attached with it. Moreover, as per decision taken in the meeting dated 17.8.2009 under the Chairmanship of Chief Administrator, preference was to be given to the local institute and the petitioner being a local institute should have been given preferential right. Aggrieved by the action of the official respondents in allotting the site in favour of respondent No.4, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition. 3. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 by Ms.Manisha Trighatia, Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA, wherein it has been, inter-alia, stated that respondent No.4 – Chief Khalsa Dewan was set up in the year 1902 with annual budget of Rs. 22 crores. It has over 600 members/affiliated units all over the country and is financially very sound. At the time of interview, complete set of documents alongwith details about their institutions including the income tax exemption etc. were submitted by respondent No.4 which were duly considered by the Scrutiny committee. It was also stated that petitioner society did not have affiliation with any State level religious body. Respondent No.4 being considered better, letter of intent was issued in its favour. On these premises, prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made. 4. Separate written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4 stating therein that the application was filed complete in all respects and bank statement and other documents were attached with it. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the annexure appended by respondent No.4 at Page 90 of the paper book, it was specifically stated that respondent No.4 was “the caste based society”. Learned counsel referred to eligibility condition in the brochure which reads as under:- “Eligibility A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or a Trust registered under the Trusts Act, 1882 or an institution constituted or established under any law for the time being in force are eligible to apply. Learned counsel referred to eligibility condition in the brochure which reads as under:- “Eligibility A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or a Trust registered under the Trusts Act, 1882 or an institution constituted or established under any law for the time being in force are eligible to apply. The allotment of land shall not be made to castes and baradari based organizations.” According to the learned counsel, a perusal of the above condition shows that allotment of land was not to be made to castes and baradari based organisations. It was contended that the allotment made in favour of respondent No.4 being in violation of the aforesaid condition was bad. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that Condition No.3 in the advertisement issued for inviting applications from societies and trusts for religious sites for setting up of temple, Gurdwara, Masjid and Church etc. on lease hold basis was to the following effect:- “3. Allotment of land to religious bodies will be made only if there is a demand by local residents and there is no religious place of the concerned religion in the area.” It was urged that the allotment of land to religious bodies was to be made if there was a demand by local residents and the petitioner being a society which was set up in Sector 48 itself was fully complying with the aforesaid condition. Reference was also made to the condition prescribed in the brochure relating to “how to apply”, which reads as under:- “HOW TO APPLY Interested bodies mentioned above, may apply on the application form attached with this brochure (alongwith requisite documents listed at page iii of the application form) to the chief Administrator, GMADA, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar in person or by registered Post on or before the closing date. The application should be accompanied by application money of Rs.50,000/- in the shape of bank draft in favour of chief Administrator, GMADA payable at SAS Nagar. Conditional, incomplete, unsigned or defective applications are liable to be rejected. One application will be valid for one site only. In case an applicant is interested in more than one site, he will have to make separate application, each accompanied by a separate application fee of Rs.50,000/-.” 7. It was argued that respondent No.4 did not attach the bank balance statement with the application form as required. One application will be valid for one site only. In case an applicant is interested in more than one site, he will have to make separate application, each accompanied by a separate application fee of Rs.50,000/-.” 7. It was argued that respondent No.4 did not attach the bank balance statement with the application form as required. The list of documents to be attached with the application form was as under:- “1. Account payee Bank draft amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. 2. Audited Balance Sheet and Income Expenditure Statement of all Accounts for the last three years (or since the inception of the institution, if the institution has been in existence for less than three years). 3. Project report of the scheme. 4. Layout plan indicating land requirement for the various components duly signed by Registered Architect. 5. Proposed plan of construction showing the justification of land utilization duly signed by Regd. Architect. 6. Rough cost Estimate. 7. Financial Position Statement of Accounts in any Scheduled Bank. 8. Certificate of registration of Society/Trust alongwith memorandum of Society/Trust. 9. Constitution of the Society/Trust and list of executive members. 10. Income tax clearance certificate, income tax exemption proof, if any. 11. Documentary proof of experience.” The application was liable to be rejected in case it was conditional, incomplete, unsigned or defective in any manner. The application of respondent No.4 was thus liable to be rejected in view of not fulfilling the conditions as prescribed in the brochure. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the official respondents besides supporting the allotment made in favour of respondent No.4, submitted that respondent No.4 is a State level religious body and was considered better than the petitioner by the respondent authorities. It was also submitted that all the documents were submitted at the time of interview before the Scrutiny committee and after examining the matter, the allotment was made in favour of respondent No.4. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Respondent No.4 who was found to be suitable for allotment was not eligible as its application form itself was not complete. Respondent No.4 had not appended the bank balance statement with the application form. The application form being incomplete was liable to be rejected. 10. Respondent No.4 who was found to be suitable for allotment was not eligible as its application form itself was not complete. Respondent No.4 had not appended the bank balance statement with the application form. The application form being incomplete was liable to be rejected. The production of bank balance statement at the time of interview would not make respondent No.4 eligible. According to the criteria laid down in the brochure, the application form was to be seen on the date of its submission. Further, respondent No.4 as per the documents filed at Page 90 of the Paper Book, had stated that it was caste based society whereas in the eligibility conditions, it was specified that the allotment of the land shall not be made to castes and baradari based organisations. In such an eventuality, learned counsel for the official respondents was unable to justify allotment of land made to respondent No.4 in violation of the eligibility conditions. 11. In view of the above, the allotment made in favour of respondent No.4 is quashed. It shall, however, be open for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to invite fresh applications for making the allotment in accordance with law. The writ petition stands allowed.