Per Virender Singh, J.;— Caveat No. 984/2012 Since Mrs. Goswami, learned Dy. AG, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 (caveators), the instant Caveat petition stands discharged. LPAOW No. 61/2012 1. As agreed by learned counsel for both the sides, the appeal on hand is admitted to hearing and taken on board for its final disposal. 2. The appellant-Society is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 24.08.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby OWP No. 381/2012 filed by the appellant-Society seeking restraint from its dispossession from the shop which was allotted to it in year 1993, stands disposed of in the following manner:- a) The respondents shall be free to take steps for setting up Trauma Level-II hospital in the building, housing the petitioner's medical shop. b) The petitioner-society shall forthwith vacate the space provided to it by the respondents so that all the hurdles for setting up the facility are removed. c) The respondents on their part shall accord consideration to the allotment of an alternative place within the hospital premises or in its close vicinity to the petitioner society having due regard to the requirement of the indoor and outdoor patients treated in the hospital and their accessibility to the medical shop, as also the requirement for grant of license to run the medical shop. d) The respondents shall do well to take decision in the matter within four weeks from the date receipt of the order. 3. Heard Mr. Raina, learned Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mrs. Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the appellant-society and Mrs. Goswami, learned Dy. AG, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, the contesting respondents. 4. Mr. Raina, learned senior counsel, submits that a room in the shape of a shop was allotted to the appellant-society in year 1993 for providing medicine at fair price to the indoor and outdoor patients treated in the hospital round the clock. It was allotted without any monthly rent. However, in January 2001, a unilateral decision was taken by the Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Udhampur (respondent No. 3) to have Rs. 400/- per month as rent from the appellant-society for running the said shop. The rent was subsequently increased from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 4000/- per month from 1st of December, 2007. The appellant-society is paying the said rent regularly. 5. 400/- per month as rent from the appellant-society for running the said shop. The rent was subsequently increased from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 4000/- per month from 1st of December, 2007. The appellant-society is paying the said rent regularly. 5. Learned senior counsel then submits that somewhere in March, 2011, respondent No. 3 asked the appellant to shift the fair price medical shop from the main building of the hospital to the Tin Shed as the State Government has proposed to convert the building into a Trauma Level-II hospital. The appellant-society still being comfortable with the said proposal, spent Rs. 80,000/- to make the Tin Shed suitable for the medical shop. However, the Drug Controller did not grant the drug licence in its favour to run the medical shop in the Tin Shed and ultimately Hospital authority, has dismantled the said Tin Shed and constructed a concrete room for renting it out along with other two newly constructed rooms. 6. Learned senior counsel submits that the respondent No. 4 in the mean while vide letter dated 12.03.2012 asked the appellant-society to shift the Cooperative Medical Fair Price Shop from the present site to Sewa Bharti in Sarai building. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid communication, the appellant-society knocked at the door of learned Writ Court by filing OWP No. 381/2012 which now stands disposed of in the aforesaid directions. 7. Learned senior counsel submits that a very short controversy is involved in the present rase as the appellant-society which is providing medicine at fair price to the indoor and outdoor patients since 1993 when a room was allotted to it without any rent for long seven years and that subsequently also, it agreed to all the terms and conditions for enhancement in the rent from Rs. 400/- per month to Rs. 4000/-per month, deserves to be adjusted in a newly constructed shop within the premises of the hospital itself, may be by entering into fresh agreement/terms and conditions with the appellant-society at the time of handing over the possession of the aforesaid shop. Mr. Raina submits that the Cooperative societies are operating in most of the hospitals in the State and that the appellant-society, which consists of four ex-servicemen, may not be deprived of the same consideration especially when it is agreeing to enter into fresh terms and conditions. 8. Per contra, Mrs. Mr. Raina submits that the Cooperative societies are operating in most of the hospitals in the State and that the appellant-society, which consists of four ex-servicemen, may not be deprived of the same consideration especially when it is agreeing to enter into fresh terms and conditions. 8. Per contra, Mrs. Goswami places on record eviction notice sent to the appellant-society on the basis of the decision taken by the Committee of the Officers constituted by the Director, Health Services, Jammu (respondent No. 2). In the said eviction notice, while referring to the directions passed in OWP No. 381/2012, it is stated that the appellant shall be provided an alternate accommodation as already offered by Medical Superintendent, vide letter No. DHU/3312-18 dated 12.03.2012 within the vicinity of the hospital premises on the fresh agreement/terms and conditions. According to Mrs. Goswami, Hospital authority has intimated the appellant-society to shift to Sewa Bharti in Sarai building which is quite close to the hospital and virtually within its vicinity which fact is strongly controverted by Mr. Raina stating that the said Sarai building is at a reasonably good distance and it would be very difficult for the attendants to fetch the medicine in case of emergency. 9. Mrs. Goswami, however, fairly states that the hospital authorities have constructed three shops which has also resulted into dismantling of Tin Shed as stated by Mr. Raina and one of the shops is vacant for running Chemist shop only may be by giving it to a third party on rent. 10. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the impugned order of learned Single Judge calls for its modification. The appeal on hand is, thus, disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to allot one shop out of the newly three constructed shops to the appellant-society instead of allotting an alternate place at Sarai building in terms of the letter No. DHU/3312-18 dated 12-03-2012. However, they shall be at liberty to enter into fresh agreement/terms and conditions, which may include the enhancement of rent to a reasonable amount. 11. The impugned order dated 24-08-2012 stands modified accordingly. 12. CMA No. 101/2012 also stands disposed of.