JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) WE have a bunch of 8 cases. The petitioners in these cases complain that their claim for allotment of the built-up booths has been wrongly rejected. They pray that the orders passed by the Assistant Estate Officer (exercising the powers of Estate Officer) and the Appellate Authority, copies of which have produced as Annexures P-3 and P-5 respectively, be quashed. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the facts in CWP No. 6343 of 2000. These may be briefly noticed.
(2.) ON March 15, 1991, the petitioner submitted an application for registration for the allotment of a booth. He deposited the fee of Rs. 100/-. On March 25, 1991 the petitioner deposited the additional amount of Rs. 3,000/-. The claims of all the persons, who had registered licences were screened by a Committee. Thereafter the matter was placed before the competent authority for consideration. Vide order dated December 28, 1998 it was held that the petitioner was not eligible for the allotment of a booth. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Chief Administrator vide his order dated February 29, 2000. A copy of this order is at Annexure P-5. By this order, it was held by the Authority that the appeal was not maintainable under the Rules. Aggrieved by the two orders, copies of which are annexed as Annexures P-3 and P-5, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He prays that both the orders be quashed. The claim of the petitioner has been controverted. A written statement has been filed. It has been inter alia stated that the claims of all eligible persons were considered by a Screening Committee. Thereafter the matter was placed before the competent authority for consideration and decision. It was found that "the petitioner did not hold a valid handcraft licence...". Thus he was not eligible. Resultantly, his request for allotment of a booth was declined. On these premises, the respondents pray that all the writ petitions should be dismissed.
(3.) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard.;