Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 284 (UTT)

Mohd. Irshad v. State of Uttarakhand

2010-05-06

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2010
Judgment J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. The claim of respondent no. 4 for running the Hat Bazar is based on the fact that the brother of the respondent no. 4 was granted a licence to run the Hat Bazar for the period from 2006-07 up to 2009-10. The brother of respondent no. 4, namely, Fakir Mohammad died in June, 2009. At the time of his death, he had not deposited the licence amount for the entire period. It is, therefore, that respondent no. 4, who desired to step into the shoes of his brother Fakir Mohammad, was permitted to deposit the aforestated licence amount. As a matter of fact, respondent no. 4 deposited the aforesaid licence amount on 5.3.2010. The same was duly accepted by the Zila Panchayat, Udham Singh Nagar. Respondent no. 4. Having deposited the licence amount payable by his brother Fakir Mohammad must, therefore, be deemed to have stepped into the shoes of his brother Fakir Mohammad, after the said arrears were accepted by the Zila Panchayat, Udham Singh Nagar. At this juncture, respondent no. 4 sought and was allowed to operate the Hat Bazar for the period 2009-10 in Village Barkheda Pandey, for a licence fee of Rs. 20,000/- for two days in a week. 2. Based on the fact that respondent no. 4 had been granted a licence to operate the Hat Bazar for the period 2009-10, he claimed extension for the year 2010-11. Since the aforesaid extension was not granted to respondent no. 4, respondent no. 4 approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 366 of 2010. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide an order dated 28.4.2010. 3. The appellant before this Court has assailed the order passed on 28.4.2010 by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 366 of 2010. The appellant claims the right to operate the Hat Bazar for two days in a week in Village Barkheda Pandey on the basis of his having been successful in an auction, conducted by the Zila Panchayat, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby he was granted the licence to run the aforesaid Hat Bazar for the period 2010-11. The appellant claims the right to operate the Hat Bazar for two days in a week in Village Barkheda Pandey on the basis of his having been successful in an auction, conducted by the Zila Panchayat, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby he was granted the licence to run the aforesaid Hat Bazar for the period 2010-11. It is, therefore, apparent that the appellant herein is also fully justified to run the Hat Bazar for two days in a week in Village Barkheda Pandey on the basis of his successful bid. 4. In the facts and circumstances depicted hereinabove, as a matter of law, it may be difficult to choose one over the other, inasmuch as, both have substantiated their own claim in their own respective ways. Interest of justice, therefore, demands that in the peculiar facts of this case, which shall not be a precedent for future, both the appellant and respondent no. 4 should be permitted to operate the Hat Bazar for two days in a week in Village Barkheda Pandey for the period 2010-11, subject to the condition that respondent no. 4 agrees to pay the licence fee equivalent to the bid amount, on which the appellant succeeded in obtaining the licence for the said period. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 having obtained instructions from respondent no. 4, who is present in Court in person, states that respondent no. 4 agrees to deposit the same amount as has been agreed to be deposited by the appellant for operating the Hat Bazar for two days in a week in Village Barkheda Pandey for the period 2010-11. Additionally, we consider it just and appropriate to direct respondent no. 4 to obtain registration in terms of the prescribed norms within two weeks from today. In case, respondent no. 4 makes the required deposit for registration with the Zila Panchayat, Udham Singh Nagar, his application shall be duly considered and approved in accordance with law. It is only if respondent no. 4 seeks registration in the manner depicted hereinabove, he shall be allowed to operate the Hat Bazar for two days in a week in Village Barkheda Pandey for the year 2010-11, on the deposit of a sum of Rs. 76,000/-(as has been deposited by the appellant herein). 5. It is only if respondent no. 4 seeks registration in the manner depicted hereinabove, he shall be allowed to operate the Hat Bazar for two days in a week in Village Barkheda Pandey for the year 2010-11, on the deposit of a sum of Rs. 76,000/-(as has been deposited by the appellant herein). 5. In the course adopted by us, whereby we have affirmed the determination rendered by the learned Single Judge by imposing further conditions on respondent no. 4, we consider it just and appropriate to further direct that it will be open to the appellant to revoke the licence granted to him for operating the Hat Bazar in the Village Barkheda Pandey for the year, 2010-11, if he so desires, by exercising his option within two weeks from today. In case, the appellant addresses a registered communication to the Zila Panchayat, Udham Singh Nagar within two weeks from today, revoking the aforesaid option, the Zila Panchayat shall refund the entire licence amount deposited by the appellant. 6. The instant Special Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.