K.KANNAN, J. - (1.) C .M. is allowed. Affidavit taken on record. In CWP Nos. 18840 and 6690 of 2010 the issue is one of the entitlement of the respective petitioners to be allotted shops in the newly constructed complex as a measure of fairness to persons who had been previously occupying shops and places of various dimensions within the Durgiana Mandir Complex and who were required to be evicted to make possible the beautification of the temple complex. At a previous hearing when the complaint was that in the manner of reallocation there is no transparent policy adopted, I had sought for details as to how the reallocation was to be done. In response to the directions, the Amritsar Improvement Trust has filed an affidavit through its Chairman.
(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP No. 6690 of 2010 that he was running an industry in an extent of 1100 sq. yards, but several other persons had been in occupation of much smaller shops and area are allotted bigger or shops of equal size, with no weightage at all given to the size of shops that were held. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents point out that all the shops which are going to be constructed and intended for allotment are more or less of the same size and the scheme is only to accommodate all of them and it is not possible to make proportionate size of shops for allotments. The corner shops in the place are a little larger and in the manner of allotment the respondents would follow a policy of draw of lots so that if there are smaller variations in the size, it cannot be complained that there was any partiality practiced towards the allottees.
(3.) IN the distribution of shops by way of re allotments, the policy of adjusting them by draw of lots is a prevalent judicially accepted prevalent practice and I will find no reason to suspect the bona fides of the fairness of such a decision. It will be irrelevant that persons having shops or places of various sizes in the existing temple complex are now coming by a different dispensation of being provided shops of equal dimensions. It shall be improper to direct that the new allotments must also be made of varying sizes. Uniformity in sizes go for better aesthetics. Therefore, I would find that no special privilege should be given to any tenant or any occupier by the fact that one shop keeper was occupying a larger portion but he comes by the same size as a smaller shop keeper in the new dispensation. If all the newly adjusted tenants come by shops of the same dimensions no prejudice should be said to be caused.;