Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 340 (HP)

Mohinder Pal v. State of H. P.

2012-06-15

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge, 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, for clarity sake, facts of CWP No. 6550/2010-G have been taken into consideration. 2. Petitioners were permitted to construct shops on Khasra No. 343 in the year 1994. They started paying rent @ 150/- per month, which was subsequently increased to 400/-. Petitioners’ leases/tenancies/licences were cancelled on 15.3.2005. They assailed the notices issued on 15.3.2005 by filing CWP Nos. 217/2005 to 249/2005. These writ petitions were disposed of the Division Bench of this Court on 23.6.2005 by issuing the following directions: As stated by the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur in his affidavit dated 20th June, 2005, the construction of new shopping complex upon the land comprised in Khasra No. 689 shall be completed by 25th August, 2005. Upon completion of this shopping complex, the petitioners shall move from the existing location in Khasra No. 343 and be allotted and occupy the shops in the new shopping complex. The petitioners shall be issued a notice/communication asking them to vacate the shops in the existing complex within a period of two weeks. If the petitioners fail to do so, the respondents would be well within their rights to evict the petitioners themselves. The failure on the part of the petitioners to vacate shall amount to disobedience to these directions of this Court also, entailing action for committing contempt of this Court. 2. As far as the new shopping complex upon the land comprised, 32 shops shall be allotted to the 32 petitioners herein by draw of lots. As far as the rent of these 32 shops is concerned, even though in the rehabilitation plan (which is Annexure-A to the aforesaid affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner) a proposal has been made with respect to the rent structure, we direct that across the board with respect to all the 32 shops, the respondents shall fix the rent about 12% to 15% less than what has been proposed. 3. In the shopping complex that is presently under construction upon the land comprised in Khasra No. 689, it shall be ensured that proper entry and exit points are provided both for the shopkeepers as well as the shoppers and there is a proper toilet block which is properly demarcated. 3. In the shopping complex that is presently under construction upon the land comprised in Khasra No. 689, it shall be ensured that proper entry and exit points are provided both for the shopkeepers as well as the shoppers and there is a proper toilet block which is properly demarcated. The District Administration shall ensure that either by itself or with the help of the shopkeepers appropriate arrangements are made to keep the toilet block clean at all times. 4. In so far as the proposed three storeyed shopping complex that would be constructed on the land comprised in Khasra No. 343 is concerned, the respondents would be at liberty to make allotment of shops in this complex to eligible persons, but it shall be ensured that such allotment strictly conforms to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that no allotment in an arbitrary manner is made to anyone. Since everyone in the public would be eligible to apply for the allotment on the terms and conditions as might be fixed by the respondents herein, it shall be open to the petitioners also to apply for such allotment in the new proposed three storeyed complex, on such terms and conditions, but on the condition that if the petitioners are allotted shops in the shopping complex which would be constructed upon the land comprised in Khasra No. 343, they shall be liable to vacate the shops under their occupation in the shopping complex upon the land comprised in Khasra No. 689. To ensure that it is done, alongwith every such application the petitioners shall submit an undertaking to this effect. In so far as the case of Anju Negi (CWP No. 245 of 2005) is concerned, even though the respondents have disputed that she is either on occupant or an allottee of any shop or structure in the existing complex in Khasra No. 343, while disposing of her petition by this common order, we direct the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur to examine her case personally and if need be to visit the existing shopping complex. If in the process of such examination and upon such consideration, the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur comes to a finding that indeed the petitioner Anju Negi is in occupation of a shop in the said complex, based on a legitimate allotment, respondents shall ensure that an additional, the 33rd shop is also constructed in the shopping complex upon the land comprised in Khasra No. 689 and allotment thereof is made to the petitioner Anju Negi in accordance with the same directions hereinabove contained as are applicable to other petitioners. All the petitions are disposed of by the aforesaid agreed order.” 3. Thereafter, new Indira Market was constructed by the Special Area Development Authority (S.A.D.A.) on Khasra No. 689. The S.A.D.A. also constructed three storeyed new market shopping complex on Khasra No. 343. It decided to auction the shops by issuing public notices. The necessary publication was made in the daily Edition of Divya Himachal and Amar Ujala dated 16.10.2010 whereby sealed tenders/bids were invited to obtain licences for running shops in new shopping complex. Total number of shops was 29, out of which 27 were for open auction and 2 shops were confined to war widow at Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur. The last date of submission of tenders was 18.11.2010 and the auction was fixed for 19.10.2010. In the meantime, the members of the petitioners’ Union requested not to auction the shops on 16.10.2010. Petitioners assailed the tendering process by way of present petition. The Court passed the following interim order on 19.10.2010: “Short reply within three weeks. Post on 16.11.2010. The petitioners shall also be permitted to participate in the auction proceeding, if not already conducted as on today. However, finalization of the auction shall be after obtaining the orders from this Court.” 4. It appears from the record that by the time, the S.A.D.A. was informed about the order dated 20.10.2010 the auction was over. The S.A.D.A. has entered into agreement with the persons, who have given the highest bid but the possession was not handed over to them. 5. Mr. Sandeep Dutta and Ms. Bhavana Dutta have strenuously argued that the new shopping complex built on Khasra No. 689 has been declared unsafe and in these circumstances, the newly constructed shops on Khasra No. 343 should have been allotted to them on reasonable licence fee/rent. 5. Mr. Sandeep Dutta and Ms. Bhavana Dutta have strenuously argued that the new shopping complex built on Khasra No. 689 has been declared unsafe and in these circumstances, the newly constructed shops on Khasra No. 343 should have been allotted to them on reasonable licence fee/rent. They also argued that the respondents have unduly favoured private respondents, who according to them are holding various offices in Bhartia Janta Party. They further contended that the entire process of tendering was done in utter haste since the notices were issued on 16.10.2010 and the auction itself was fixed for 19.10.2010. According to them, the mandatory conditions of bid documents have not been complied with by the applicants, which has vitiated the entire tendering process. 6. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Arvind Sharma and Viveka Nand Negi appearing on behalf of respondents have strenuously argued that the new shopping complex has been constructed by raising its own funds by the S.A.D.A. According to them, the S.A.D.A. had adopted very transparent process of tendering the shops in new marketing shopping complex. They also contended that petitioners No. 1, 4, 11, 19 and 25 have participated in the tendering process and one of them has already been allotted the shop. He further contended that by auctioning the shops, income of the S.A.D.A. will be augmented, which can be further utilized for developmental activities. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 8. During the pendency of the petition, an application was moved by respondents No. 5 to 33 for impleadment bearing CMP No.2991 of 2011. It was allowed by the Court on 22.11.2011. Thereafter, an application was moved for amendment of the petition and the same was allowed by the Court. Consequently, amended petition was filed and the replies were filed by respondents No.1 to 4, to which detailed rejoinders were filed. Respondents No. 5 to 33 have not chosen to file reply despite opportunity and their right to file reply was closed on 2.5.2012. 9. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the petitioners have started running their business by constructing shops on Khasra No. 343. respondents have started charging rent initially of 150, which was subsequently revised to 400/-. Their licences/leases/tenancies were cancelled on 15.3.2005, which led to filing of writ petitions, as noticed hereinabove. 9. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the petitioners have started running their business by constructing shops on Khasra No. 343. respondents have started charging rent initially of 150, which was subsequently revised to 400/-. Their licences/leases/tenancies were cancelled on 15.3.2005, which led to filing of writ petitions, as noticed hereinabove. Respondents No. 2 to 4 on the basis of directions issued by this Court have allotted new shops to the petitioners in the market called “New Indira Market” constructed on Khasra No. 689. 10. Mr. Sandeep Dutta has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexures P-21, R-5 and technical report at pages 199, 227 and 359 of the paper book. The references to these have been made in the petition. The three members Committee comprising of Executive Engineer (IPH), A.E. (Development) and Principal (College) have submitted the report to the Deputy Commissioner of Government buildings falling in land slide zone on 22.3.2011, which is at page 199 of the paper book. It is stated in the report with regard to Indira Market complex where the petitioners are running their shops that the building has two parts, one of which is based on columns and other one on load bearing walls. The entire building has been recommended for evacuation and has to be put under observation till the rainy season and the committee took note of the fact that the road in front of the building has been severely damaged, making the area prone to further land slides. The respondents have sought the report from the Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, which is at page 227 of the paper book. According to this report, on the eastern side of the road, Indira market is located. This road has also sunk by about 30 cm. Rubble masonry as a whole shows effects of sinking with consequent separation of walls in a number of locations in the shopping complex. It was also noted that there was no interlocking of masonry walls at the junctions and three storey RC framed building adjoining the Indira market has tilted forward by about 1500 mm but is intact otherwise. The petitioners have also placed on record the report prepared by Rajiv Sharma, Architect at page 359 of the paper book. It was also noted that there was no interlocking of masonry walls at the junctions and three storey RC framed building adjoining the Indira market has tilted forward by about 1500 mm but is intact otherwise. The petitioners have also placed on record the report prepared by Rajiv Sharma, Architect at page 359 of the paper book. It is a detailed report, which has carried out technical assessment of landslide affected area at New Market Committee and Indira Market, Reckong Peo, Kinnaur District. The site observations of the zone (Indira Market) in its vicinity as per the report are at pages 372 to 382 of the paper book. 11. The petitioners have also been directed to vacate the shops as per Annexure PA-16 dated 26.5.2011. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has referred to report of the committee dated 15.9.2011. According to this committee, the buildings which were kept under the observation till rainy season were inspected and it was found that there was no further movement in the sliding area. 12. What emerges from the report is that the “New Indira Market Complex” falls in a sliding zone. It has sunk and the cracks have developed. It has become unsafe for human habitation. It is in these circumstances, the petitioners have been served with a notice to vacate the premises on 26.5.2011. The petitioners have initially started their business pursuits in new market in the year 1994 and thereafter the notices were issued to them on 15.3.2005 and after the intervention of this Court, new market has been re-built over Khasra No. 689. This Court on 19.10.2010 directed the petitioners to participate in the auction proceedings, if not already conducted. This Court, however, directed that finalization of the auction would be after obtaining the orders from this Court. 13. The respondents were directed to produce the records. The records have been produced. In sequel to notice dated 16.10.2010, the auction was held on 19.10.2010. One of the petitioners No. 19, as per Mr. Sandeep Dutta, has participated in the auction and has been allotted the shop. The Court has perused the records. The tenders were required to be submitted accompanied by an earnest money in the form of demand draft for 30,000/-in favour of the Member Secretary (SDM), S.A.D.A., Rekong Peo payable at Kinnuar. One of the petitioners No. 19, as per Mr. Sandeep Dutta, has participated in the auction and has been allotted the shop. The Court has perused the records. The tenders were required to be submitted accompanied by an earnest money in the form of demand draft for 30,000/-in favour of the Member Secretary (SDM), S.A.D.A., Rekong Peo payable at Kinnuar. The Court has gone through the terms and conditions to obtain the licence for running shop in Main Bazar, Kinnaur. According to clause (F), the tender/bidder shall enter license fee rate per month at clause No. 3 (E) of the document in figures as well as in words and in case there is any discrepancy in the filled rate, amount in words shall hold good. All the application forms were perused by the Court. The applicants have not quoted fee per month for running shops. Column (F) reads thus: “F. The tender/bidder shall enter license fee rate per month at clause No. 3 (E) of this document in figures as well as in words. In case there is any discrepancy in the filled rate, amount in words shall hold good.” 14. The column (F) has been kept blank. The language used in clause (F) of the main document is mandatory and the rates were required to be quoted in column. In these circumstances, it was not open to respondents No. 2 to 4 to proceed with the tendering process. The-then Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalpa and the present Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalpa, who is the Member Secretary of S.A.D.A., Kinnaur had appeared in the court for assistance. They submitted that the reserve price was fixed for the shops and thereafter bids were called for. This system was also faulty. Firstly, the applicant has to quote the fee per month and thereafter the auction could proceed. Hypothetically, if the applicant had quoted fee of 10,000/- in that eventuality, the bid had to start from 10,000/-. 15. According to Mr. Arvind Sharma, the reserved prices for the shops were as under: Sr. No. Shop No. Reserve Price in 1. 101 5000/- 2. 102 4000/- 3. 103 5000/- 4. 104 5000/- 5. 105 to 111 3000/- 6. 112 4000/- 7. 113 to 115 2500/- 8. 116 & 117 1000/- 9. 118 & 119 2500/- 10. 120 3500/- 11. 121 3000/- 12. 122 to 128 2000/- 13. 129 3000/- 16. Mr. No. Shop No. Reserve Price in 1. 101 5000/- 2. 102 4000/- 3. 103 5000/- 4. 104 5000/- 5. 105 to 111 3000/- 6. 112 4000/- 7. 113 to 115 2500/- 8. 116 & 117 1000/- 9. 118 & 119 2500/- 10. 120 3500/- 11. 121 3000/- 12. 122 to 128 2000/- 13. 129 3000/- 16. Mr. Arvind Sharma has submitted that the bidding process was conducted on 19.10.2010 since the copy of the order was received in the evening. However, he fairly submitted that though the agreements were entered into between the parties but the possession was not handed over. 17. Mr. Sandeep Dutta has also argued that in fact the possession of the building, i.e. new market complex was handed over to the S.A.D.A. by the contractors only on 2.11.2011 and in these circumstances, it was not open for the respondents to proceed with the tendering process. In other words, his submission is that everything has been done in utter haste by issuing notice on 16.10.2010 and to auction the shops on 19.10.2010 though the same were not complete. Petitioners have made specific averment that all the persons to whom the shops have been allotted are functionaries of the Bhartia Janta Party. These averments are containing in para 15 (h) of the writ petition. These allegations have not been denied by the respondents, including private respondents. As far as the private respondents are concerned, they have not even chosen to file the reply to the writ petition. However, the Court is not going into the details since it has already held that the tendering process was vitiated due to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the bid document whereby it was mandatory for the applicant to quote the fee in column (F) of the application. The non-compliance with the preconditions of the bid documents would disqualify the party from participating in the tendering process. In the instant case, as noticed above, the parties have not quoted fee as per requirement of bid document and in view of this the tendering process could not continue and the same stood vitiated. 18. The Court is of the considered view that since the petitioners were already running their business, they should have been given preference for allotment of shops instead of initiating the process of public auction. 18. The Court is of the considered view that since the petitioners were already running their business, they should have been given preference for allotment of shops instead of initiating the process of public auction. Petitioners have been rehabilitated after the intervention by this Court in CWP No. 217/2005 disposed of on 23.6.2005. They were shifted to another shopping complex in the year 2006. They have now been issued show cause notice on 20.5.2011 to vacate the premises. The business block has been declared unsafe. Petitioners constitute a separate class and should have been treated differently. It has also come on record that the S.A.D.A. is dependent on grants from the State Government and the new market complex has been built from the funds generated by the S.A.D.A. The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that income of the S.A.D.A should augment but at the same time the petitioners were required to be suitably rehabilitated taking into consideration that they are doing their business in the same area since 1994 and the new shopping complex, i.e. “New Indira Market” has been declared unsafe. 19. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gursharan Singh and others etc. etc. versus New Delhi Municipal Committee and others, AIR 1996 SC 1174 have held that in case of stall holders running shops on certain land for more than three decades and where the land was acquired underneath shops for widening of road, such stall holders of shops in shopping complex at concessional rate and without trade zone restriction would not be unreasonable since they constitute separate class. Their Lordships have held as under: “2. So far the Panchkuian Road stall-holders were concerned, allotments of shops were made to them in the zones reserved for them, but they were not subjected to zoning restrictions, the only restriction which was imposed on them was that they had to carry on only the permissible trade specified in Appendix 'A' to the term and conditions of the allotment. They were to pay the licence fee also at a different rate which was admittedly at a lower rate than the licence fee which had been offered and accepted from the applicants who were allotted shops out of 177 shops referred to above. They were to pay the licence fee also at a different rate which was admittedly at a lower rate than the licence fee which had been offered and accepted from the applicants who were allotted shops out of 177 shops referred to above. It is the case of the N. D. M. C. that special consideration in respect of licence fee as well as the zoning restriction in respect of Panchkuian stall-holders was made to induce and persuade them to move from Panchkuian Road to the Palika Bazar Shopping Complex so that the stalls occupied by them could be removed and the widening of the road was facilitated. Similar concession was offered to some Tibetan stall-holders at Janpath requesting them to move from Janpath to Palika Bazar where shops had been reserved for them in an area known as Mini Market. The total number of the stalls in the Mini Market was 58. It is an admitted position that the allottees of the stalls in the Mini Market were not subjected to any zoning system, but like Panchkuian Road allottees they were permitted to carry on only those traders which were permissible and had been enumerated in the aforesaid Appendix 'A'. 7. The learned counsel appearing in different appeals took the same stand before this Court that there was no justification on the part of the N. D. M. C. to make allotments of the different shops in the same marketing complex not only on different rates of licensing fee, but even with different trade zoning restrictions which per se was arbitrary as equals had been treated as unequals, as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. According to the appellants, the Panchkuian Road stall-holders were in no way different from the appellants so far their claim for allotment of the shops in the said marketing complex was concerned. They should also have been subjected to the same trade zoning restrictions as are specified in the Annexure 'A' to the terms and conditions of allotment and should not have been allowed to carry on trades of their choice in the shops allotted to them. Similarly, there could not be any conceivable justification for charging from them the licence fee at a lower rate than what has been charged from the appellants and others similarly situated. 8. Similarly, there could not be any conceivable justification for charging from them the licence fee at a lower rate than what has been charged from the appellants and others similarly situated. 8. It appears the Panchkuian Road stall-holders were running the stalls on the lands for more than three decades which were later required for widening of the road and a question arose before the N. D. M. C. as to how to offer them some attractive proposal to rehabilitate them so that they can move from Panchkuian Road. This object was achieved after proper negotiation, discussion and decision having been taken in consultation with the Delhi Administration and Central Government to offer shops to them in the new marketing complex at a concessional licence fee and without trade zoning restrictions subject to the condition that they shall carry any of the trades specified in Annexure 'A' to the terms and conditions of offer. According to us, the allotment of 98 shops to the stallholders of Panchkuian Road was made treating them as a separate class, on a reasonable and rational basis. The land occupied by their stalls were required by the N. D. M. C. for a public purpose i.e. for the widening of the road. It was otherwise not easy for the N. D. M. C. to throw them out of Panchkuian Road and after proper deliberation a decision appears to have been taken to induce them to move out of Panchkuian Road to Palika Bazar. This object was achieved by lowering the licence fee and making relaxation in the trade zoning restrictions to some extent which cannot be held in any manner as irrational, partial or biased so as to be held to be unreasonable. 9. Apart from that even if it is assumed that concession was shown to such stall-holders by the N. D. M. C. the appellants cannot make grievance in respect of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. Having agreed to the terms of allotment they cannot legitimately claim that they should also be treated in the same manner. There appears to be some confusion in respect of the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. This guarantee of equality before law is positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner. There appears to be some confusion in respect of the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. This guarantee of equality before law is positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner. To put it in other words, if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, the others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court or of this Court, that the same irregularity or illegality be committed by the State or an authority which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, so far such petitioners are concerned, on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been extended to others although in an irregular or illegal manner. Such petitioners can question the validity of orders which are said to have been passed in favour of persons who were not entitled to the same, but they cannot claim orders which are sanctioned by law in their favour on principles of equality before law. Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination. None of the 98 stall-holders were impleaded as parties to the writ petitions. The appellants questioned the validity of the allotment of 98 shops on concessional rates, without trade zoning restrictions in favour of the stall-holders of Panchkuian Road, but they were primarily interested that same concessions in respect of licence fee and relaxation in trade zoning restrictions, be also extended to them. Any such claim on their behalf cannot be entertained on the basis of concept of equality before law as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 10. Any such claim on their behalf cannot be entertained on the basis of concept of equality before law as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 10. The Division Bench of the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petitions filed on behalf of the appellants on the finding that there was proper justification on the part of the N. D. M. C. to make allotments of the shops which had been reserved for stall-holders of the Panchkuian Road.” 20. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Labha Ram and sons and others versus State of Punjab, AIR 1998 SC 2086 have held that in matter of allotment of plots/shops in the new market, existing traders should have been given preference and the preference to the erstwhile dealers may not be by providing free allotment of buildings or plots or allotment at a rate which is below the reserved price. However, the Government may fix up any rate above the reserved price for such licensed dealers, but such fixation should not be at unreasonable rates. Their Lordships have held as under: “4. In the year 1992 Government decided to create a new Mandi Complex at Guru Har Sahai and another at Talwandi. Lands were acquired by Government for that purpose and buildings were constructed for providing the infrastructure to the new market areas. The immediate impact of creation of such new market townships on the appellants was that they had to move their business from the existing market areas to the new township in order to prevent closure of their business. Resultantly all of them became anxious to get accommodation in the respective new market areas but they are told to stand in the queue along with all the new-comers and compete with them in the open auction. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent had fairly conceded that there is no difficulty to find space to accommodate the erstwhile dealers in the new market area. But the contention advanced is that the purpose of public auction was to earn revenue and there was no bar on the existing traders to compete with the new-comers and that sufficient number of plots/shops were available to satisfy all such traders if they choose to bid in the open auction. But the contention advanced is that the purpose of public auction was to earn revenue and there was no bar on the existing traders to compete with the new-comers and that sufficient number of plots/shops were available to satisfy all such traders if they choose to bid in the open auction. It was also submitted that there was no bar on those traders to continue their business at old places, although for sale and purchase of agricultural produce they may have to move their business at the market yards of the new Mandis. 14. The above line of argument of the State seems to us rather specious. Land is acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Laws for establishing new Mandi township. Land so acquired is developed, plots are carved out and shops and flats are built thereon. Plots as such may be disposed of or shops and other construction thereon can be made for use of the trading. Hence the land for establishment of new Mandi is not to generate revenue for the State. It may be a laudable object for the State to earn revenues in the process but that could not be the sole or even the main purpose of acquiring land. New Mandis are established because of increase in business transactions and congestion in the old Mandis and for other such objects. 15. It is easy to contend that the existing traders can still operate from their old places but then for the conduct of their business for sale of agricultural produce they have to come to new Mandi. It would mean that they have to come to the new Mandis for conduct of their routine business but for rudimentary business they could continue to do the same at old places. The fact remains that any trader would like to conduct his business of sale and purchase of agricultural produce at the platform close to his shop. 16. We do not suggest that Government should give preference to the erstwhile dealers by providing free allotment of buildings or plots nor to fix a rate which is below the reserved price. It is open to the Government to fix up any rate above the reserved price for such licensed dealers, of course such fixation should not be at unreasonable rates.” 21. Consequently, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petitions are allowed. It is open to the Government to fix up any rate above the reserved price for such licensed dealers, of course such fixation should not be at unreasonable rates.” 21. Consequently, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petitions are allowed. The tendering process commenced on the basis of notice dated 16.10.2010 is quashed and set aside. Respondents No. 2 to 4 are directed to allot 50% of the shops in the “New Market Shopping Complex” to the petitioners by way of licence/lease not below the reasonable reserved price to be fixed by respondents No. 2 to 4 by draw of lots. 50% shops are directed to be auctioned strictly in accordance with law by way of open auction. The respondents No. 2 to 4 are further directed that the petitioners who will not get the shops either by way of draw of lot or by way of auction, should not be evicted and their shops from where they are running their business be repaired to make them safe for human habitation, within a period of two months from today. It is made clear that respondents No.2 to 4 while undertaking tendering process will fix the minimum reserved price as per the rates quoted by the applicants in their applications for every shop on each floor. It is also made clear by way of abundant precaution that it shall be open to the petitioners also to participate in the open bidding process as well. The amount already deposited by the persons, who have been allotted the shops, shall be refunded forthwith. The process be completed within a period of two months from today. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.