ORDER : In compliance of the orders dated 5.10.2017 and 12.10.2017, Mr. Jagbandhu Mahtha, Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega is present before this Court along with the file. 2. On perusal of the said file, the same does not appear the original one containing the proceedings of allotment of the shop in question. Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C. (L&C), however, submits that according to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega, the original file was handed over to the learned State Counsel, who was earlier representing the State in the present case. Since the said- file has not yet been returned to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega, the shadow file is being produced before this Court, which contains photocopies of the proceedings relating to allotment of the shop in question. 3. After perusal of the file, the same is returned to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega. 4. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.9.2006 passed by the respondent No. 3 in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2006-07 whereby, the allotment of the petitioner's shop (Shop No. 87) has been cancelled w.e.f. 20.9.2006. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 20.9.2006 whereby, the petitioner has been directed to vacate the shop in question within a period of one week, failing which he would be forcibly evicted from the shop in question. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, Shop No. 87 was allotted in favour of Mukesh Kumar Bharti @ Pintu Bharti vide order contained in Memo No. 440(II) dated 21.4.2011 and as such he was also impleaded as the respondent No.5, pursuant to the order dated 14.9.2012. 6. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner and several other persons were running small shops in the area known as Daily Market, Simdega. The Government, in order to regularize such small shops run by the petitioner as well as several other persons, constructed a market• complex, namely, Daily Market Complex, Simdega. The petitioner applied for allotment of a shop and also deposited construction money as a condition after taking loan from the Gumla-Simdega Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Gumla and he is still paying the loan amount. The petitioner applied for allotment of a shop and also deposited construction money as a condition after taking loan from the Gumla-Simdega Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Gumla and he is still paying the loan amount. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega (respondent No.3) allotted Shop No. 87 of Daily Market Complex situated at Mouza-Simdega under Khata No. 172 appertaining to Plot No. 3/3131 in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 1.6.1995. The rent was fixed by the Rent Fixation Controller and the formal allotment agreement was also entered between the petitioner and the respondent-State through the Circle Officer, Simdega (respondent No.4). Subsequently, the respondent-authorities came to know that some of the lessees have not started their business and have sub-let the allotted shops to different persons and, thereafter, show cause notices were issued to those lessees including the petitioner as to why the allotment of shops in their favour be not cancelled since they violated Clause-13 of the Agreement. Thereafter, one lessee, namely, Abdul Kalam preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4859 of 2006 wherein vide order dated 7.7.2006, the respondent No. 3 was directed to make enquiry and evict the illegal occupants from the said market complex and to further re-allot the shops to the needy persons. The petitioner replied the show cause notice on 18.9.2006, however, vide order dated 19.9.2006, the allotment of the petitioner's shop was cancelled and vide order dated 20.9.2006, he was directed to vacate the shop premises within a week. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent No. 3 is contrary to the provision of Section 4 of the Bihar (Jharkhand) Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956. The order of eviction has been passed against the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has never sub-let the shop in question to any person. The impugned order of the respondent No. 3 is a cyclostyled order and in several cases, the respondent No. 3 has passed the same order without application of mind and without considering the show cause reply filed on behalf of the allottees. The petitioner has never violated the terms and conditions of the allotment. The impugned order of the respondent No. 3 is a cyclostyled order and in several cases, the respondent No. 3 has passed the same order without application of mind and without considering the show cause reply filed on behalf of the allottees. The petitioner has never violated the terms and conditions of the allotment. The respondent No.5 was not in possession of the Shop No. 87, rather the said shop was allotted in favour of the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 1.6.1995 and the respondent No.5 was his employee. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of Clause 13 of the agreement by sub-letting the Shop No. 87 to one Pintu Bharti (respondent No.5). It is further submitted that pursuant to the order dated 7.7.2006 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4859 of 2006, the respondent No. 4 opened record of Shop No. 87 vide Misc. Case No. 13 of 2006-07 on 28.6.2006 and issued show cause notice dated 3.7.2006 to the petitioner. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner appeared on 18.7.2006 and filed his show cause reply stating, inter alia, that Pintu Bharti (respondent No.5) was his employee and he paid him wages according to the work and in this respect the petitioner and Pintu Bharti also filed affidavits sworn by them. The respondent No.4, thereafter, sent the record to the respondent No.3, who again conducted a detailed enquiry personally and found that most of the original allottees had sub-let their shops. The respondent No.3 issued final show cause notice dated 14.9.2006 to the petitioner whereupon the petitioner filed his reply. However, Pintu Bharti (respondent No.5) filed a petition before the respondent No.3 on 18.9.2006 stating therein that he had not sworn any affidavit in favour of the petitioner and the affidavit filed by the petitioner was a forged one and at the same time he admitted that Shop No. 87 was given to him on rent by the petitioner and he was running the shop in the name of "Aditya Bag Centre". Thereafter, vide letter dated 20.9.2006, the petitioner was informed that since he violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, his allotment has been cancelled w.e.f. 20.9.2006 and he was directed to vacate the shop in question within a week. Thereafter, vide letter dated 20.9.2006, the petitioner was informed that since he violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, his allotment has been cancelled w.e.f. 20.9.2006 and he was directed to vacate the shop in question within a week. It is further submitted that this Court, vide order dated 12.10.2006, directed the respondent-State not to take any coercive action against the petitioner, however, the shop in question got already vacated on 4.10.2006. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 submits that the petitioner was not carrying out any business in Shop No. 87 and it was given to the respondent No. 5 on rent by sub-letting it and as such the petitioner violated Clause 13 of the Agreement. The respondent No.5, after noticing that the said shop was closed for a long time, preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1084 of 2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.1.2011 granting liberty to the petitioner to make individual representation before the respondent No.3, who was further directed to take action in terms with the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 4859 of 2004 within two months. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 conducted due enquiry, issued a general notice inviting objections and finally allotted the shop in question to the respondent No. 5 treating him as a "needy person" and also realized the amount due w.e.f. 1.6.1995. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no right to claim the shop in question because he is not a needy person, which is evident from the fact that he never started any business in the shop in question and had sub-let it to the respondent No.5. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner was the original allottee of the shop in question and the district administration after having come to know that some of the allottees have sub-let their allotted shops, issued show cause notices to them and, thereafter, one of the allottees preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 4859 of 2004, which was disposed of vide order' dated 7.7.2006. Since the order dated 7.7.2006 is quite relevant in determining the issue, the relevant paragraph of the same is quoted as under:- "The Sub-Divisional Magistrate is directed to personally make an inquiry and issue notices to all those persons who have been running the shops either on the basis of sub-lessee or on the basis of purchaser. All those persons who are illegally occupying the shops and running the business shall be noticed to show cause and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing, get the shops vacated to be re-allotted to the needy persons including the persons who shall be evicted. This exercise must be completed within a period of six months from today." 11. In pursuance of the order dated 7.7.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No. 485912004, the respondent No.4 proceeded with Misc. Case No. 13 of 2006-07 wherein the petitioner filed his show cause reply stating therein that he was in possession of the shop in question and the respondent No. 5 was his employee and in support of his claim, the petitioner also filed affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.5. However, when the matter came up before the respondent No.3, the respondent No. 5 declined to have given any such affidavit before the respondent No. 3 and further stated that actually the shop in question was sub-let to him by the petitioner. The respondent No.3, thereafter, passed an order of eviction and finally evicted the petitioner from the shop in question. The respondent No.5. thereafter, preferred another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1084 of 2010 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 31.1.2011 granting liberty to the respondent No. 5 to make individual representation before the respondent No. 3 with a direction to the respondent No. 3 to decide the claim of the respondent No. 5 in terms with the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 4859 of 2004 within two months. The relevant paragraph of the order dated 31.1.2011 is reproduced hereinbelow: "In the circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to make their individual representations before the respondent No.2-Notified Area Committee through the Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega. A copy of the writ petition can be treated as their representations. The relevant paragraph of the order dated 31.1.2011 is reproduced hereinbelow: "In the circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to make their individual representations before the respondent No.2-Notified Area Committee through the Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega. A copy of the writ petition can be treated as their representations. Speaking order in accordance with law and in terms of the order passed in the case of Abdul Kalam (supra), will be passed by the respondent No.2 after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as early as possible and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of the representations." 12. On perusal of the record, it transpires that pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 4859 of 2004, the shop in question was allotted to the respondent No. 5 having found him a needy person. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assiduously argued that the impugned order of eviction has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. However, the record of the case reveals that two show cause notices were issued to the petitioner, one by the respondent No.3 and another by the respondent No.4. The petitioner also duly replied the said show cause notices asserting his stand before the respondent No. 4 and as such the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order of eviction has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be accepted. As regards the other ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 has wrongly held that the petitioner had sublet the shop in question to the respondent No.5, the same is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. However, this Court is not unmindful of the fact that the affidavit of the respondent No. 5, filed by the petitioner in support of his claim before the respondent No.3, was subsequently refuted by the respondent No.5 with an assertion that the shop in question was actually sub-let to him by the petitioner. 13. The Clauses 10, 13 and 16 of the Draft Agreement (Annexure-1 of the counter affidavit of the respondent No.5) is reproduced hereinbelow:- "10. 13. The Clauses 10, 13 and 16 of the Draft Agreement (Annexure-1 of the counter affidavit of the respondent No.5) is reproduced hereinbelow:- "10. That the premises as has been detailed below in the schedule will not be transferable by way of sale, gift, will or mortgage except with the previous permission of landlord and save and except by way of succession or by way of partition without making any material alteration to the premises. For succession and partition also the prior permission of landlord would have to be obtained. 13. That any sub-letting of any kind by the tenant would be violation of terms of this agreement. 16. That, in case of violation of this agreement made by the tenant, the occupant of the premises (detailed below in the schedule) will be subject to eviction through the process of the Bihar Act 20 of 1956 and the remaining part of the contribution money deposited by the tenant will be forfeited." 14. On perusal of the aforesaid terms and conditions of the Agreement, it would be evident that sub-letting a shop comes under the purview of violation of the terms of the agreement and as per Clause 16 of the Agreement, the petitioner was liable for eviction through the process of the Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Government Premises (Allotment, Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956. It was not the case of the petitioner before the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that the respondent No. 5 was an unknown person and he was not running the shop in question, however, he asserted that the respondent No. 5 was running the shop in question as his employee, which was denied by the respondent No.5. On the other hand, the petitioner has not brought on record any material to suggest that the respondent No.5 was his employee. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question appears to be justified. 15. Now the issue is as to whether the action of the respondent-authorities in allotting the said shop in favour of the respondent No.5 is justified. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question appears to be justified. 15. Now the issue is as to whether the action of the respondent-authorities in allotting the said shop in favour of the respondent No.5 is justified. Earlier, when the similar matter came up before this court in W.P.(C) No. 4859 of 2004, the same was disposed of vide order dated 7.7.2006 directing the Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega (respondent No.3) to inquire into the matter and after evicting the illegal occupants, to re-allot the shops to the needy persons including the persons who would be evicted. Another matter came up before this Court in W.P.(C) No.1084 of 2010 filed by the respondent No. 5 and the same was disposed of directing the respondent No. 3 to decide the claim of the respondent No. 5 in terms of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 4859 of 2004 within two months. In the aforesaid two orders, this Court had directed the respondent-State to re-allot the shop to a needy person including a person, who has been dispossessed from the shop. On perusal of the order of the respondent No. 4 dated 9.3.2011 passed in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2006-07, it appears that after eviction of the petitioner from the said shop, the respondent No. 5 was doing business of bags outside the shop in question and the respondent No. 5 had no shop. The respondent No.3, after receiving the representation of the respondent No.5, made an enquiry and also issued general notice dated 12.3.2011 (Annexure-E) inviting objections and when no objection was received, the shop in question was finally allotted to the respondent No. 5 and as such there appears no illegality in the order of allotment dated 21.4.2011 in favour of the respondent No.5. 16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned action of the State-respondents. 17. The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.