The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking allotment of vegetable shops. The court held that absence from initial surveys precluded an indefeasible right, dismissed the Article 14 challenge due to factual dispute, and allowed the petition despite delay.
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.
l;lt
ce ^ erc
D;
IN THE HIGHCOURt OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH
W.P.(C) No. '^~€)S^ l 2008
PETITIONER 1
/s
^yi/ C^..^-sl.''^j
^/^. ^
*<<''os'^'Jb>^^'
r'
./?^
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
^
Distt. - Durg (C.G.)
Estate Department - shops section,
Distt.-Durg (C.G.)
WRIT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 2260F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUSCERTIORARIETC.
• -.-^:j
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR
Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J
W.P.rci N0.7095/2008
PetitLoners Pradeep Yadav and Othere
Versus
Respondents Steel Authority of India'and Others
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
Present -
ihri Vipin Tnyari, counsel for the petitionere. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, counsel for respondents.
ORAL ORDER
(Passedon07<1.2011)
Heard.
£.••
•ffi}
-<3 /
2- —
The President of the
included in the survey list, have been allotted shops. The President of the Society j.e. Chhattisgarh Sabji Mandi, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai requested for allotment of shops, even then, no allotment letter has been issued to the petitioners.
^
h--
^.^
^•^ -Ijy 'ai,;fl?ai'3>. 'yss^ •^y
the petitioners were actually running their business and setling vegetables, itsetf is a seriously disputed quesUon of fact which cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Last submissionof learned counsel for the respondents is Uiat this petition itself suffers from undue delay and laches as the petitionere have approached this Court after about 8 years. He submits that the allotment list were prepared in the year 1998-1999 and on that basis altotments were made in the year 2000-2(X)1 whereas this petition has been fited in the year 2008 and is Uierefore liable to be dismissed on that count atone.
l'k-i
^
—il
iSiKi-:
i.. tIW""-". •:.•"."»'""( IWUMWWWSHWfMif^
Jtes.'
/"'A:~^*
^ss
A-
were notfound to be occupant or running business ofselling vegetables. True it is that subsequently another tist was prepared on 28-08-1999 and the names of the petitioners appeared in tfiis tist, Uie fact remains that ttie petitioners were not found as occupant on twosurveys made before that. The only conclusion which could be drawn on the basis of three surveys is that on (y-02-1998 and 15-021999, the petitioners were neither running their business nor occupying the place of shop but later on 28-08-1^9, the petitioners may have occupied the place so as to find place in thelist. Ifthat be so, it cannot be said that the respondents '~s-'^ ihave committed any arbitrariness or adopted pick and choose policy in allotment of shops. It is open for the respondent authority to atlot the shops pureuant to advertisement. An attempt was made by the respondent authoritjes to remove encroachment and the encroacherswere offered shops by way of aHotment. If in that exercise and in the initial survey, the petitioners were not found occupying the place andtheir names were not included, they cannot claim an indefeasibte right for allotment of shop. The claim of the petitionere are that they were occupying the place and ninnmg Uieir business even on the date.when initiat surveys made, fliis itself is a disputed question of fact and this Court cannot go '^.into the disputed question of fact whether the petitioners were running their business on 01-12-1998 and 15-02-19% or not. It is not the case of the petitioners nor is there any material to come to the conclusion that those, who were subsequently added in the list on 28-08-1 %9,were atso considered for allotment and allotted shops also. Therefore, no case for discriminatory action is madeout.
dismissed.
w»,,^"»->"sbr'<""" Judge _
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to allotment of vegetable shops after initial surveys excluded them.
Whether non-allotment to the petitioners amounts to arbitrary action in violation of Article 14.
Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Pradeep Yadav and Others
Steel Authority of India
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
