Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 141 (JHR)

Pradeep Kumar Dhawan v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-02-12

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to allot shop No. 23 at Main Road, Ichak Bazar, Hazaribagh from where he was displaced in the name of beautification and reconstruction of shop and alternatively direction on the concerned respondents to allow a kiosk to the petitioner under the scheme of beautification plan. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had his shop at Ichak Bazar, Main Road, Hazaribagh since past about 20 years. In the year 1998, a meeting was convened on 26.3.1998 by the Block Development Officer, Ichak. In the said meeting, a decision was taken to beautify the market-place by demolishing old shops and constructing new shop buildings. It was agreed and decided that the shopkeepers/owners of the shops, who were running their business of that place shall be allotted newly constructed Kiosk of 8 x 10 at the place their shops were located. The petitioner had his shop (gumti) No. 18 in the Ichak Bazar, which was the only source of livelihood of his family. 3. According to the decision, he was to get a shop at that place. The respondents had agreed to that and also accepted the security amount of Rs. 1,500/- from the petitioner. The remaining such was to be deposited after allotment of the shop. 4. It has been stated that after the said agreement and decision, shops were demolished and a multistoried building was constructed. The other shops owner were accommodated. But the petitioner was not allotted any shop. 5. The petitioner made several requests and representations but the same were not heeded upon. Ultimately, the petitioner approached this Court in CWJC No. 2932 of 1999(R). The said writ application was finally disposed of by order dated 30.3.2001 with observation that the petitioners representation shall be immediately considered and a decision regarding allotment of the shop shall be taken within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The respondents, in spite of the said order, did not take any decision within the time prescribed by this Court. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a contempt petition being MJC No. 434 of 2001. In the said contempt case, the then Block Development Officer, Ichak appeared and stated that the shop was offered to the petitioner, but he did not accept the same. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a contempt petition being MJC No. 434 of 2001. In the said contempt case, the then Block Development Officer, Ichak appeared and stated that the shop was offered to the petitioner, but he did not accept the same. The letter dated 22.5.2001 was also annexed to the show-cause reply to show that shop No. 85 was allotted to the petitioner. In view of the said statement made in his show-cause reply, the contempt proceeding was dropped. 7. It has been stated by the petitioner that the said shop No. 85 was already allotted to one Ajay Kumar Mehta and the statement made by the then Block Development Officer in his show-cause reply in the contempt case was false and baseless. Under the scheme, the shop owners, who were displaced, were to be allotted the shop on priority basis. But contrary to the decision, a new person, Habru Mian has been allotted the shop, who was not the displaced person whereas the allotment has not been made in favour of the petitioner. The respondents misrepresented before this Court stating that the shop No. 85 was allotted to the petitioner but he refused to take the same. The shop of the petitioner was the only source of livelihood and it is fanciful to state that he would not accept the. shop on allotment. 8. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating, inter alia, that Stall No. 85 was the only vacant premises meant for the petitioner. In the light of the order passed in CWJC No. 2932 of 1999(R), the petitioner was offered the said shop, but he refused to take the same. The petitioner was also informed that Stall No. 23 had already been allotted to some other person and it could not be possible to allot the same to him. Since the petitioner refused to accept Stall No. 85, the earnest amount returned to him by letter No. 796 dated 6.6.2001. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also considered the facts and circumstances, appearing on record. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was displaced from his shop in the name of beautification of the place and construction of new shops. In the meeting of the shop owners, it was decided and assured that the displaced persons will be first allotted the shops in priority basis. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was displaced from his shop in the name of beautification of the place and construction of new shops. In the meeting of the shop owners, it was decided and assured that the displaced persons will be first allotted the shops in priority basis. The petitioner was one of such displaced persons. He also deposited the earnest money for allotment of the new shop, which was accepted by the respondents. 10. According to the petitioner, in spite of the said assurance and acceptance of security amount, no shop was allotted to him. The petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court in CWJC No. 2932 of 1999(R). This Court vide order dated 30.3.2001 directed the respondents to consider the petitioners claim and pass appropriate order regarding his claim of allotment of the shop. But the order of this Court was not complied with within the prescribed time. The petitioner filed a contempt petition being MJC No. 434 of 2001. A notice to the show-cause was issued to the then Block Development Officer. He appeared and filed an affidavit stating, inter alia, that shop No. 85 was allotted to the petitioner, but he did not accept. A notice regarding allotment of the of the said shop was served on the petitioner on 22.5.2001, but the petitioner refused to take the said notice. 11. The petitioner has brought on record an FIR dated 4.5.2001 lodged by the then Block Development Officer, Ichak. In the said FIR, It has been clearly mentioned that the shop No. 85 was allotted to one Ajay Kumar Mehta S/o. Dineshwar Prasad Mehta of Village-Barda, P.S. Ichak, District-Hazaribagh. The said document has not been denied by the respondents. The FIR dated 4.5.2001 lodged by the then Block Development Officer thus clearly mentioned that the shop No. 85 was allotted to another person, whereas he has stated that the shop was allotted to the petitioner, informing him by letter dated 22.5.2001. The fact of allotment of the shop No. 85 to the petitioner, thus, stand falsified. The petitioner has categorically stated that no offer was made to him and no notice of allotment letter dated 22.5.2001 was served on him. 12. The fact of allotment of the shop No. 85 to the petitioner, thus, stand falsified. The petitioner has categorically stated that no offer was made to him and no notice of allotment letter dated 22.5.2001 was served on him. 12. From the FIR dated 4.5.2001, it is clear that since the shop was already allotted to Ajay Kumar Mehta and the same was not vacant/available for allotment to the petitioner, there was no occasion for making the offer with regard to allotment of shop No. 85 to the petitioner. The said frivolous ground was taken by the Block Development Officer in his show-cause reply filed in the contempt case. In view of the said reply, the contempt proceeding was dropped. The respondent No. 3 had falsely stated that the shop No. 85 was allotted to the petitioner, but he refused to accept the same. The said misrepresentation was obviously for avoiding the consequences for not complying with the order of this Court. It shows how the said respondent managed to deny allotment of shop to the petitioner and escaped the consequences for not obeying the order of this Court. 13. The allegation of refusal by the petitioner is not supported by any document or material on record. The petitioner is still ready and willing to accept the allotment and there is no reason as to why after depositing the security money, the petitioner would refuse to accept the offer of allotment of shop. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, though the concerned respondent deserved deterrent/stern action for misleading this Court and evading its order as also for instilling the petitioners faith in the system of rule of law and administration of justice, this Court refrains from entering into further enquiry keeping in view the past proceedings and invoking judicial restrain. This writ petition is being disposed of directing the respondents to allot a shop to the petitioner as per their assurance, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order or alternatively pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- (two lakhs and fifty thousand) to the petitioner within the said period, if the respondents are unable to keep their assurance of allotting shop to the petitioner. If the said amount is not paid in default of allotment, the same shall carry interest @ 10% per annum. 2,50,000/- (two lakhs and fifty thousand) to the petitioner within the said period, if the respondents are unable to keep their assurance of allotting shop to the petitioner. If the said amount is not paid in default of allotment, the same shall carry interest @ 10% per annum. In the event of payment of compensation, the State Government shall be at liberty to enquire into the matter and fix the liability and realize the amount from the erring official(s). 15. The respondents are also directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand), to the petitioner within the said period.