Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1064 (MAD)

G. Vairam v. Divisional Engineer

2012-02-28

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the allotment order, dated 15th June, 2011, passed by the first respondent, vide which, third respondent has been allowed to run a petty shop. 2. The Writ Petition prima facie is misconceived, as the petitioner does not have locus standi to challenge, the allotment in favour of the third respondent, in view of the fact that the petitioner has also been allotted alternate site, in lieu of the previous site, held by him, vide order dated 27.6.2007, bearing Se.Mu.Ka.No.1645/2007/A4. 3. The petitioner in the guise of challenging the allotment order, in favour of the third respondent, seeks a direction of this Court to permit him to run the petty shop in illegal manner, by encroaching public place. 4. The petitioner is a physically challenged person and was running a shop near the main gate of Salem Mohan Kumaramangalam Government Hospital for the past one year, as per the conditions stipulated of the license, which was renewed every year. 5. The case of the petitioner, is that the first respondent removed the petty shop, run by the petitioner, for laying street pavements, and allotted alternative shop, the first respondent, ought not to have allowed the third respondent, to run the shop, at the place, while denying the permission to petitioner. The contention raised is that, this action of the respondent is discriminatory, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. On consideration, I find that the Writ Petition is totally misconceived. The petitioner has no right to run the shop, on a pavement, especially, when the petitioner has been already provided alternative site, to run the shop. The respondent No.3, is also running petty shop, as per allotment similar to petitioner. The allegation of discrimination, therefore, are also totally misconceived. 7. The Writ Petition, therefore, being devoid of merits, is ordered to be dismissed. 8. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.