The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 15 lakh as a premium for a shop allotment. The Court held the impugned order was correct to protect existing allottees' civil rights and balance equity.
The writ petition was dismissed in its entirety.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39337 of 2019
Petitioner :- Gaurav Mittal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Saxena
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th October, 2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Bijnor.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has wrongly been directed to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- for the disposal of his matter which, according to him, was to be decided by the respondents as per the mandate contained under the order dated 8th August, 2019 passed in Writ- C No.- 25350 of 2019.
Per contra , the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the matter has come to be decided. Since the petitioner had put up a bid of Rs.15,00,000/- as a condition to get shop auctioned, he has been directed to deposit the amount so that earlier allotment can be cancelled and fresh auction proceedings could be initiated.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and their argument advanced across the Bar and having perused the record, we find that the District Magistrate in his order dated 30th October, 2019 has directed for initiating a fresh allotment process, in case if the petitioner deposits Rs.15,00,000/- as he has claimed that to be the premium amount which deserves to be obtained from allottees and it is in such event that it has been directed that the earlier allotment would stand cancelled.
In our considered opinion, we do not find any error in the order. If somebody is ready to offer Rs.15,00,000/- as a premium for the allotment of the shop in question and claims that the allotment has been done for a very paltry sum, there is nothing wrong in the order if such condition is imposed. The petitioner
is claiming that the shop is worth Rs.15,00,000/- as the premium fee for the allotment of the shop in question, so he is required to deposit the same. The civil rights have got accrued in favour of already standing allottees, who are respondent in the present case and, therefore, their rights have to be protected and equity has to be balanced. The bona fides of the petitioner is rendered doubtful, if he does not deposit the amount as directed in the order and approaches this Court for quashing the same.
In our considered opinion, therefore, the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and deserves dismissal and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.12.2019 Atmesh
(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the direction by the District Magistrate to deposit Rs. 15,00,000/- as premium before initiating a fresh auction process was erroneous.
Whether the petitioner's bona fides were capable of being doubted for not depositing the directed amount before approaching the High Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gaurav Mittal
State Of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
