Sabji Vikreta Kalyan Samiti Basti v. State Of U. P.
2011-06-30
PANKAJ MITHAL, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA
body2011
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner making the following prayer:- a) issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to accept the rent of the Shops of the petitioner in accordance with the Government Order dated 10th December, 2010. b) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents not to charged the fine in depositing the rent. c) issue, any writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. d) Award the cost of this writ petition to the petitioner." 2. It is inter-alia, averred in the Writ Petition that the members of the petitioner- Society are doing their business in the Mandi in question. In the year 2003, the members of petitioner-Society were allotted shops. The rent being paid by the members of the petitioner-Society was Rs. 121/- per month. However, the rents are now being taken from the members of the petitioner-Society @ Rs. 1694/-, Rs.600/- and Rs.272/- per month in respect of the shops of B, C and D categories, respectively. 3. A Government Order dated 10th December, 2010 (Annexure no. 3 to the Writ Petition) has been issued fixing rent in respect of shops of various categories. 4. Accordingly, the rent in respect of shops of B category has been fixed at Rs. 225/- per month while the rent in respect of shops of C and D categories has been fixed at Rs.125/- and Rs.100/- per month, respectively. 5. The grievance of the petitioner-Society is that the said Government Order is not being given effect to by the respondents. 6. Sri A. K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has made statement that the respondents are now implementing the said Government Order dated 10th December, 2010, and the rent as fixed by the said Government Order, will be charged with effect from 10th December, 2010. 7. In view of the above statement made by Sri A. K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, no cause of action survives to the petitioner-Society in the present Writ Petition and therefore, no further? orders are required to be passed in the present Writ Petition. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.