Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 465 (JK)

Muhammad Shafi Rather v. State of J&K

2018-07-03

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners, nine in number, claiming to be dislocated shopkeepers of Hazuri Bagh, Srinagar, and asserting to have been assured allotment of shops in the proposed Municipal Shopping Complex at Iqbal Park (Hazuri Bagh) under self financing scheme by way of rehabilitation against a premium initially fixed at Rs.80,000/- per shop in the ground floor and Rs.60,000/- in the first floor, in lieu whereof the petitioners, on demand, state to have deposited the first instalment of the premium as fixed, have approached this Court through this writ petition, seeking essentially the relief of a direction to the respondents to allot them the assured shops in Block-C of the said Shopping Complex. 2. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the writ petition, certain developments and events took place, the first being that, pursuant to Court order dated 27.12.2008, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders under rules, the Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation, issued an order under endorsement no. SMC/Rev/492-503 dated 18.07.2009 ordering that, keeping in view the escalation in the market, each shopkeeper of Block-C, Hazuri Bagh, would have to pay Rs.16.50 lacs plus 20% extra, aggregating to Rs.19.80 lacs. Consequent upon issuance of this order, the petitioners amended their writ petition to challenge the same. The second, and the most important development that took place, which has a vital bearing on the outcome of this writ petition, was registration of a case, FIR no.16/2012, at Police Station VOK, under Section 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act Svt. 2006 read with Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 RPC. The investigation into the case by the Vigilance Organization culminated into filing of a charge sheet in the Court of Special Judge, Anticorruption, Srinagar, on 29.12.2015 against 68 accused persons which case is subjudice, wherein the petitioners also figure as accused. In these circumstances, the case calls for a, somewhat, detailed backdrop narrative of the facts, developments and events, picking up the thread from the pre-amended stage of the writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioners has been this: that they are dislocated shopkeepers of Hazuri Bagh, Srinagar. In these circumstances, the case calls for a, somewhat, detailed backdrop narrative of the facts, developments and events, picking up the thread from the pre-amended stage of the writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioners has been this: that they are dislocated shopkeepers of Hazuri Bagh, Srinagar. In order to rehabilitate them and other Khokha holders/shopkeepers of Hazuri Bagh, Srinagar, the official respondents 1 to 4 (comprising Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department and the authorities of Srinagar Municipal Corporation) in a meeting held on 16.03.1993 decided that the then Srinagar Municipality (now Srinagar Municipal Corporation) would construct shops at Iqbal Market under self financing scheme for which Rs.80,000/- and Rs.60,000/- for ground floor and first floor, respectively, would be charged from the prospective tenants with rentals. Consequent thereupon, the Executive Officer of the erstwhile Srinagar Municipal Committee, addressed communication no.PS/EO/452 dated 10.06.1994 to the Revenue Officer, Srinagar Municipality, directing him to enlist the persons mentioned therein, which included the names of petitioners 1 and 2, for allotment of shops in the ground floor in the proposed Municipal Building at Hazuri Bagh and, in lieu thereof, to recover first instalment of Rs.20,000/- from each of them. Copy of this communication is shown to have been endorsed to petitioner no.1 herein for his information and necessary action. It is stated that, thereafter, on 16.06.1994, letters came to be addressed to petitioners 3 to 7 requiring them to deposit the first instalment of 25% of the amount of premium of Rs.80,000/-. Similar letters are stated to have been addressed to petitioners 8 and 9. It is averred that pursuant to the aforesaid communications dated 10.06.1994 and 16.06.1994, the petitioners deposited Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- with the respondents as first instalment of premium of Rs.80,000/- on different dates against receipts, the purported copies whereof are annexed with the writ petition as annexures B, B/1, B/2, B/3, B/4, B/5, B/6, B/7 and B/8. Petitioners have also enclosed with the petition as annexure B/9 a list of persons purported to be the dislocated shopkeepers showing against each of them the deposit of the amount of first installment. This list comprising 87 persons is shown to have been signed by the Chief Revenue Officer and Assistant Revenue Officer of the Srinagar Municipality. 4. Petitioners have also enclosed with the petition as annexure B/9 a list of persons purported to be the dislocated shopkeepers showing against each of them the deposit of the amount of first installment. This list comprising 87 persons is shown to have been signed by the Chief Revenue Officer and Assistant Revenue Officer of the Srinagar Municipality. 4. According to the petitioners, the construction of the proposed complex was delayed considerably, and on 08.10.1999, respondent no.3, i.e., the Executive Officer, Srinagar Municipality, addressed letters to the petitioners informing them to remit 50% as first instalment of the re-fixed premium of Rs.1.35 lacs for ground floor within a period of 21 days from the date of issue of the said letters, failing which, they were informed, they will forfeit their claims. To evidence this fact, the petitioners have annexed some letters as annexures C, C/1, C/2, C/3 and C/4 to the writ petition. The petitioners are stated to have deposited the said amount within the stipulated time against receipt, the purported copies of document whereof have been annexed with the petition as annexures D to D/19. 5. It is stated that as the respondents failed to construct the shops, number of writ petitions were filed by other claimants with the prayers to direct the respondents to construct the shops and to allot the same to them so that they could carry on their businesses and earn their livelihood. 6. Meanwhile, the respondent, Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation, is stated to have published a notice, issued under endorsement no.DIPK-NB-1777 dated 10.10.2006, in a local English Daily, Greater Kashmir, in its issue dated 12.10.2006, stating therein that vide order no.894 of 2002 dated 27.11.2002 letters of intent had been issued to 75 of the 120 persons for allotment of shops from commercial complex under construction known as Municipal Shopping Complex, Block-C, Hazuribagh, Srinagar, as a rehabilitation measure, and that there were reports that persons intended to be covered under the said scheme were not born in or around 1977/1990 or were minors during the said period and, therefore, could have hardly been running business in the area. It was further mentioned therein that, similarly, there were complaints that persons who were not actually doing business during the relevant period had been made entitled to allotment of shops with mala fide motives, inasmuch as these shops upon auction could fetch more than Rs.50.00 lacs as against the cost that was being charged by the Srinagar Municipal Corporation on the basis of rehabilitation. The notice directed the 75 persons enlisted therein to produce (i) photograph duly authenticated by a Gazetted Officer; (ii) copy of date of birth certificate; (iii) proof, if any, in support of allotment of any space made at any time in the past by the Srinagar Municipal Corporation; (iv) certified copy of Permanent Resident Certificate. The petitioners’ names did not figure in the said list of 75 person. 7. On issuance of the aforesaid notice by the respondents, the petitioners are stated to have approached the respondents with a representation dated 08.11.2006 that since they, in pursuance of letters dated 10.06.1994 and 16.06.1994, had remitted 50% as first instalment of the revised premium of Rs.1.35 lacs, therefore, they were also entitled to the shops. 8. According to the petitioners, the respondents failed to consider their aforesaid representation and to allot the shops in Block-C in their favour. They, therefore, filed the writ petition, challenging the aforesaid notice issued under endorsement no.DIPK-NB-1777 dated 10.10.2006 and seeking a direction to the respondents to allot nine shops to them from the commercial shopping complex under construction known as Municipal Shopping Complex, Block-C, Hazuri Bagh, Srinagar, before allotting any shop from the said complex to respondents 5 to 79 or any other person, and, in that connection, to receive 50% of the revised premium of Rs.1.35 lacs from them. 9. When the petition was first listed for consideration on 14.12.2006, the Court directed respondents 1 to 4 not to make any allotment till next date of hearing vis-à-vis nine shops located in ground floor of Block-C of the Municipal Shopping Complex at Hazuri Bagh. This direction was continued from date to date. 10. Meanwhile, the official respondents filed their reply on 03.07.2007; whereas the private respondents 5 to 79 were set ex parte by Court order dated 05.12.2007. 11. This direction was continued from date to date. 10. Meanwhile, the official respondents filed their reply on 03.07.2007; whereas the private respondents 5 to 79 were set ex parte by Court order dated 05.12.2007. 11. On 27.12.2008, while referring to para 7 of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein they stated that allotment of shops to the genuine and eligible beneficiaries could not be made on account of order of status-quo passed in several other pending writ petitions which, incidentally, were withdrawn by the petitioners on the very same day, the Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders under rules within a period of four weeks and report compliance. 12. It appears that the Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation issued an order under endorsement no.SMC/Rev/492-503 dated 18.07.2009, purporting it to be in compliance of the aforesaid Court order dated 27.12.2008, stating therein, inter alia, as under:- “The case was considered and the market rate of the shops has been fixed Rupees 16.50 lacs by Finance & Planning Committee of the Corporation for the shops of Bock-E Hazuri Bagh. The Block-C Hazuri Bagh is closer to Block-E & has a prime value more than Block-E. Keeping in view of escalation in the market 20% extra rate is charged. Accordingly, each shopkeeper has to pay 16.50 lac plus 20% which aggregates Rs.19.80 lac. The rent will be charged as per the decision taken in earlier case which will be subject to over all enhancement of all shops of the area. For time being rent will remain uniform as directed by the F&P Committee.” 13. Consequent upon issuance of the above order dated 18.07.2009 by the Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation, the respondents filed their compliance report before the Court enclosing therewith a copy of the said order, and the Court on 22.07.2009 passed an order observing therein that perusal of the compliance report as well as the order dated 18.07.2009 enclosed with it, showed that the respondents duly considered the petitioners’ cases and passed appropriate orders. The Court left it to the petitioners’ counsel to go through the said order and take appropriate steps in this behalf. Thereafter, by order dated 26.11.2009, the petitioners were given option to amend the writ petition, incorporating the grounds they intended to take to assail the order dated 18.07.2009. 14. The Court left it to the petitioners’ counsel to go through the said order and take appropriate steps in this behalf. Thereafter, by order dated 26.11.2009, the petitioners were given option to amend the writ petition, incorporating the grounds they intended to take to assail the order dated 18.07.2009. 14. The petitioners filed their amended writ petition on 30.03.2010, this time, challenging the aforesaid order issued by the Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation, under endorsement no.SMC/Rev/492-503 dated 18.07.2009 and seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to allot nine shops to them in the ground floor of Block-C of Municipal Shopping Complex, Hazuri Bagh, Srinagar, as a rehabilitation measure and to receive 50% of the revised premium of Rs.1.35 lacs from them. 15. The factual averments on the basis of which the petitioners are seeking the above reliefs have been summarized hereinabove. It is pleaded by them that the respondents are under an obligation to allot the shops to them as rehabilitation measure because they had been dislocated by them on the condition that shops would be provided to them, and that the petitioners are liable to pay only that much amount as was indicated in the notice dated 08.10.1999, and since the impugned order dated 18.07.2009 runs contrary to the said notice, it is liable to be quashed. It is further pleaded that, under the principle of promissory estoppel, the respondents are estopped from going back from the representation made to the petitioners on the basis of which they had altered their position to their detriment and disadvantage. It is also stated that in an identical petition titled Abdul Aziz Parray & ors v. State of J&K & ors, OWP no.5/2006, the Court by order dated 12.07.2006 had directed the respondents to allot shops to the petitioners therein after asking them to deposit Rs.02 lacs with the respondents, and that, since the petitioners are similarly placed, they are ready to deposit the same sum with the respondents provided that possession of shops located in the ground floor of Block-C of the Shopping Complex is handed over to them. 16. 16. In their reply to the amended writ petition, filed on 26.05.2010, the respondents stated that in the year 1993 a High Level Committee headed by the then Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, took a decision that a shopping complex would be constructed at Hazuri Bagh (Iqbal Park) for rehabilitation of dislocated shopkeepers under self finance scheme. Pursuant to the said decision, the committee of officers, constituted by the then Srinagar Municipality to identify and scrutinise the list of genuine beneficiaries to be rehabilitated in the proposed Block-C of the shopping complex, recommended a list of 120 persons. It is stated that, however, due to turmoil and militancy, the process of construction of the proposed complex got delayed as a consequence whereof several writ petitions, namely, OWP nos.07/1996, 617/1998, 540/2002, 87/2003, including the present one, were filed in the Hon’ble Court. Subsequently, those writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn in terms of Court order dated 27.12.2008. 17. The respondents further stated that while the Corporation was in the process of making allotments in favour of genuine beneficiaries, a complaint was filed by somebody before the Vigilance Organization, alleging, inter alia, that the persons enlisted by the Corporation for rehabilitation in the shopping complex in question were not genuine persons, and that undeserving persons had been enlisted therein for extraneous considerations, consequent upon which the Vigilance Organization had registered the complaint for enquiry under no.SVO-VERI-SLK-55/2009. They stated that the matter was pending enquiry and investigation of the Vigilance Organization who had also sought certain information from the respondents from time to time. In the reply it is further stated that the respondents had referred the matter to the learned Advocate General for his opinion in this behalf, who had, in turn, sought status of the investigation from the Vigilance Commissioner to enable him to give his opinion. To evidence this fact, the respondents placed certain documents on record as annexures D-1 to D-11 to the reply. It was stated that under these circumstances, the Corporation could not make allotments to the enlisted beneficiaries. 18. To evidence this fact, the respondents placed certain documents on record as annexures D-1 to D-11 to the reply. It was stated that under these circumstances, the Corporation could not make allotments to the enlisted beneficiaries. 18. The respondents in their reply further stated that the proposed shopping complex site is a centrally located place in the heart of the Srinagar City, and that, according to the present market rate (i.e., in the year 2010 when the reply was filed), the minimum rate of premium for shops was more than Rs.40 lacs, and that though the petitioners had no right to seek rehabilitation as their Khokhas/temporary shops from which they were allegedly dislocated had been raised by them unauhorisedly and without any permission/order of the then Srinagar Municipality, yet the answering respondents considered their rehabilitation on compassionate grounds vide the impugned order dated 18.07.2009 issued by the Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation, in compliance to the Court order dated 27.01.2008. It is averred that the project of proposed shopping complex was taken in hand 14 years back and due to escalation of prices of the building material and labour, the assessment of reserve value of shops at the rate mentioned in the impugned order cannot be said to be arbitrary or exorbitant which has been fixed purely on the basis of estimates by the Engineering Wing of the Corporation. The respondents have further stated that in case the amount mentioned the impugned order is not acceptable to the petitioners, the Corporation is ready to refund the amount received from them towards the payment of premium alongwith interest thereon. 19. It may be mentioned here that from a perusal of the Court order dated 29.04.2011 it appears that the learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to the earlier order of the Court passed in CMP no.565/2006 in a petition titled Abdul Aziz Parray v. State of J&K & ors., made a submission at the Bar that the petitioners’ grievance could be redressed if on similar lines the respondents would accept Rs.2.00 lacs on account of premium subject to terms and conditions contained in the said order. On this, the learned counsel for the respondents at the relevant time, namely, Mr. B.A. Khan, expressed no objection in case similar order was passed in the present petition by way of interim measure. On this, the learned counsel for the respondents at the relevant time, namely, Mr. B.A. Khan, expressed no objection in case similar order was passed in the present petition by way of interim measure. And the Court ordered accordingly, observing that the amount be paid by the petitioners within a period of one week and the possession of the shops be handed over to them after due verification. 20. On 29.07.2011, the petitioners filed contempt petition no.323/2011 alleging that despite having deposited Rs.2.00 lacs pursuant to the aforesaid orders of the Court, the respondents did not allot the shops in their favour. Notice in the contempt petition for statement of facts was issued by the Court on 09.08.2011. 21. The respondent, Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation, in his status report, filed on 14.11.2011, while admitting that an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs from each of the petitioners had been received subject to the terms and conditions contained in the order dated 18.04.2006 passed in OWP Abdul Aziz Parray & ors. v. State of J&K & ors., averred that the possession of the shops could not be delivered to the petitioners because of the fact that the matter regarding allotment of shops in Block-C Complex at Hazuri Bagh, Srinagar, was under investigation with the Vigilance Organization, and that the respondents were waiting for the outcome of the said investigation. It was stated that if no adverse finding was returned by the Vigilance Organization in respect of the petitioners, the respondents would issue allotment orders in their favour and handover possession of shops to them strictly in terms of Court order dated 29.04.2011. 22. When the Contempt petition was again listed for consideration before the Court on 15.11.2011, the Court, obviously, in context of the above status report submitted by the Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation, ordered the SSP, Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, to inform the Court about the status of the petitioners in OWP no.884/2006 and Contempt no.323/2011 as to whether verification vis-a-vis them had been conducted. 23. It may be mentioned here that after passing of the aforesaid order by the Court, the Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Commissioner, on 18.11.2011, filed a status report to the effect that in another writ petition, OWP no.714/2009, Irfan Bashir & ors. 23. It may be mentioned here that after passing of the aforesaid order by the Court, the Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Commissioner, on 18.11.2011, filed a status report to the effect that in another writ petition, OWP no.714/2009, Irfan Bashir & ors. v. State of J&K & ors., on the same subject, the Court, after taking note of the submissions made by the counsel for the Corporation that a complaint regarding the genuineness of claimants of shops was under investigation by the Vigilance Organization, had impleaded the Vigilance Organization as respondent in the said writ petition with direction to file the status report vis-a-vis the said enquiry. Pursuant to such direction by the Court, the Vigilance Organization had filed a detailed status report before the Court in that petition. A copy of the said status report, filed by the Vigilance Organization in the aforesaid writ petition, OWP no.714/2009, was brought on record as annexure D1 to the said status report. Thereafter, on 03.12.2011, SSP, Vigilance Organization, pursuant to the aforesaid Court direction dated 15.11.2011, filed his status report in the present matter. Paragraphs 2 onwards of this report, which is congruent in its contents to the one filed by him in OWP no.714/2009 and brought on record of this petition, as aforesaid, are notice worthy. They are quoted hereunder: “2. That during the course of verification, photostat copies of relevant records were collected. On perusal of the same, it was revealed that SMC had launched a special drive in the year 1991-92 during which unauthorized and illegal khokhas, kiosks and squatters on footpath were demolished/removed. The affected persons approached the higher authorities with a request for their rehabilitation pursuant to which a high level committee under the Chairmanship of the then Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir (respondent no.3) was constituted to look into their demands. 3. That it is submitted that the committee decided that SMC would construct a shopping complex at Hazuri Bagh/Ibal Park, Srinagar and dislocated persons would be rehabilitated therein on self financing pattern under which Rs.80,000/- and Rs.60,000/- had to be charged for ground floor and 1st floor respectively. It is submitted that a team of SMC officials identified and framed a list of 120 dislocated vendors. The matter remained pending for a few years. However, the identified persons approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of writ petition, but the said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioners. It is submitted that a team of SMC officials identified and framed a list of 120 dislocated vendors. The matter remained pending for a few years. However, the identified persons approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of writ petition, but the said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioners. It was decided that an amount of Rs.1.35 lacs be charged for ground floor instead of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.1.05 lacs for 1st floor instead of Rs.60,000/- in view of price escalation and an order in this behalf bearing No.894 of 2002 dated...has been issued by the then Executive Officer, SMC subject to approval of the Government. However, the approval of the Govt. has not been granted till date. In the meanwhile, letters of intent were issued in favour of 75 beneficiaries by the then Chief Revenue Officer, SMC, Srinagar. 4. That in further course of enquiry, a list of 120 persons purportedly shown dislocated in the demolition drive were found without any basis, prepared arbitrarily, as detailed herein below: a. That the Chief Revenue Officer, vide his letter No.SMC/Rev/TGR/1570 dated 30.01.2010 and No.SM/|Rev/TGR/1648 dated 17.03.2010 has intimated that nothing is on record to suggest that 120 persons mentioned in the list were dislocated in the year 1991 & 1992. They were not even Temporary Ground Rent payers of the Corporation at that point of time. b. That the Chief Khilafwarzi Officer, SMC vide his communication No.SMC/KH/759 dated 01.05.2010 has informed that the dislocation of the occupancy of the enlisted persons is not corroborated by the official records. c. That a mere reading of list indicated undue favours to a few beneficiaries, for instance: i. Field verification revealed that Shri Mushtaq Ahmad Kak (Petitioner no.69) self-styled President of Dislocated Shopkeepers Association had managed thirteen shops in his own name and in the names of his close relatives. ii. Two sons of Mushtaq Ahmad Kak namely, Jamsheed Mushtaq and Danish Mushtaq and his nephew namely Idrees Ahmad Kak S/o Abdul Hamid Kak have also been issued letters of intent for shops in Block-C, Hazuri Bagh, Srinagar. All the three persons were below ten years of age at the time of demolition in 1991-92. As per their school certificates they were studying and as such there was no question of their having any business concern at that point of time. iii. All the three persons were below ten years of age at the time of demolition in 1991-92. As per their school certificates they were studying and as such there was no question of their having any business concern at that point of time. iii. The records reveal that the shop of Shri Mushtaq Ahmad Kak in Block-C, Hazuri Bagh, Srinagar, has been transferred to Shri Mushtaq Ahmad Khan S/o Ghulam Mustafa R/o Nishat, Srinagar on the recommendation of Shri G. M. Sofi, the then Chief Revenue Officer (retired). The name of Shri Mushtaq Ahad Khan does not figure in any of the lists of dislocated shopkeepers. He could not be traced on his given addressed. iv. Shri Mushtaq Ahmad Kak S/o Ghulam Mohammad Kak R/o Lattar Masjid Safakadal, Srinagar and Shri Ameer Nazir Wani S/o Nazir Ahmad Wani R/o Nawakadal, Srinagar have been rehabilitated in Sectror-6, Batamaloo, Srinagar and then again in Blcok-C, Hazuri Bagh, Srinagar. v. A contact man who claims to be leader of ‘Dislocated Shopkeepers Association’, Shri Zahoor Ahmad Wani has managed three shops for him in the Hazuri Bagh Complex, one in his own name, one in the name of his brother and one in the name of his nephew. It is submitted that the verification has not been concluded as yet, as the relevant records connected with the facts regarding the list prepared by the revenue officials has not been received as yet from Srinagar Municipal Corporation.” 24. It may be mentioned here that the above report submitted by the Vigilance Organization suggests that the list of 120 persons has been found to be without any basis and prepared arbitrarily. 25. Be that as it may, thereafter, the Court, in the present case, by order dated 27.12.2011 clarified that the SSP, Vigilance, was required to indicate whether the petitioners were the genuine persons or not, and required him to file a fresh report in light of the above two orders of the Court. 26. Pursuant to the aforesaid Court order, the SSP, Vigilance Organization, on 04.01.2012, filed a short latest report in this regard, stating therein that all the records (photocopies) collected have been submitted to Central Vigilance Office for finalization by the Commissioner of Vigilance and that the list of 120 dislocated shopkeepers prepared by SMC, Srinagar, includes the names of the petitioners as well and that the list was without any basis. 27. 27. Thereafter, on 06.02.2012, the Court ordered the counsel for the Vigilance Organization, to file (fresh) status report which direction was repeated on several dates, including on 26.02.2013, when the Court ordered the learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Organization to file the fresh status report as regards verification no.SLK-Veri-55/09-2363 giving details and particulars of all those claimed to have been found involved in the matter under inquiry. The fresh status report was ultimately filed on 11.03.2013. This report throws a great light on the genuineness of the claim of the claimants in general and the petitioners in the present petition in particular. It is quoted hereunder:- “Verification No.SVO-SLK-Veri-55/2009 dated 06.08.2009 conducted into the allegation that officers/officials of Srinagar Municipal Corporation has (have) allotted shops in Block-C Hazouri Bagh, Iqbal Park to non-deserving beneficiaries in lieu of huge consideration of money revealed that then Assistant Revenue Officer, then Ward Officer Lal Chowk, then Ward Officer Jawahar Nagar and then TGR Assistant of Srinagar Municipal Corporation had prepared a list of 120 dislocated shopkeepers for rehabilitation in Block-C Hazouri Bagh, Srinagar. Nothing was found on record of Srinagar Municipal Corporation to suggest that any of the enlisted beneficiaries had a shop, kiosk or khokha etc. and as such, their dislocation is out of question. Consequently, case FIR no.16/2012 u/S 5(2) PC Act Svt. 2006, 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 RPC has been registered in Police Station VOK on 28.07.2012. Investigation of the case: During the course of investigation, following steps have been taken so far: 1. The office files pertaining to the allotment of shops in Block-C Hazouri Bagh Srinagar have been seized from the Revenue Section of Srinagar Municipal Corporation. On examination, it was found that then Assistant Revenue Officer Ab. Rehman Taploo, then Ward Officers Farooq Ahmad Mir & Gh Mohidin Misger and then Dealing Assistant Ab Aziz Pir had prepared a list of 120 dislocated shopkeepers for rehabilitation in reference to a High Level Committee meeting dated 16.06.1993. The list is ambiguous because of following reasons: a. it does not reflect the date of preparation of list; b. it does not mention the trade of shopkeeper; c. it is silent about the nature of occupancy; d. it does not reflect the places of dislocation; e. it is silent about the dates of dislocation. 2. The list is ambiguous because of following reasons: a. it does not reflect the date of preparation of list; b. it does not mention the trade of shopkeeper; c. it is silent about the nature of occupancy; d. it does not reflect the places of dislocation; e. it is silent about the dates of dislocation. 2. Given the fact that the list has reference of HLC meeting dated 16.06.1993, it is understood that the shopkeepers have been dislocated prior to 1993. The Demand Registers pertaining to the collection of Shop Tax, Shop Rent and Temporary Ground Rent of Ward Lal Chowk and Ward Jawahar Nagar upto 1993 have been seized from Srinagar Municipal Corporation. These seized Registers have been got scrutinized by the officials of Ward Lal Chowk and Ward Jawahr Nagar vis-a-vis the alleged false list of 120 dislocated shopkeepers. It was found that none of the enlisted 120 beneficiaries including the nine petitioners of above captioned SWP had been a Shop Rent or Temporary Ground Rent or Municipal Shop Tax payer of the Corporation and their dislocation was not established as per the records of Srinagar Municipal Corporation. 3. The officers/officials of Revenue Section and concerned Ward Offices of Srinagar Municipal Corporation have been examined and their statements have been recorded u/S 161 Cr.P.C. They have stated that occupancy of shops by any of the enlisted 120 shopkeepers and their subsequent dislocation is not established by the records of Srinagar Municipal Corporation. 4. A field verification of the enlisted beneficiaries is in progress. So far 34 enlisted beneficiaries have been identified and examined. None of them could provide any proof regarding their occupancy of a shop, kiosk, khokha etc. prior to 1993. The field verification has brought to fore the following important facts: (i) Shri Gh Rasool Kamal S/o Gh Ahmad Kamal R/o Shah Mohalla Nawab Bazar had been an employee of J&K Bank from 1973 to 2004. (ii) Nazir Ahmad Wani S/o Ab Rahim Wani R/o Nawa Kadal had retired as a Govt. Teacher in 2007. (iii) Bashir Ahmad Wani S/o Ab. Aziz Wani R/o Batamaloo had been an employee of J&K Handicrafts Corporation from 1981 to 2012. (iv) Danish Mushtaq Kak, Idrees Hamid Kak, Ishtiyaq Ahmad Kak, Amir Nazir Wani, Ajaz Ahmad, Fayaz Ahmad Choudhary and Irfan Bashir Wani had been school going boys in 1993. Teacher in 2007. (iii) Bashir Ahmad Wani S/o Ab. Aziz Wani R/o Batamaloo had been an employee of J&K Handicrafts Corporation from 1981 to 2012. (iv) Danish Mushtaq Kak, Idrees Hamid Kak, Ishtiyaq Ahmad Kak, Amir Nazir Wani, Ajaz Ahmad, Fayaz Ahmad Choudhary and Irfan Bashir Wani had been school going boys in 1993. (v) One self styled President of Dislocated Shopkeepers Association namely Mushtaq Ahmad Kak S/o Gh Mohammad Kak R/o Safakadal has obtained 13 shops in his own name and in the name of his close relatives. (vi) Another self styled President of Dislocated Shopkeepers Association namely Zahoor Ahmad Wani S/o Ab Aziz Wani R/o Batamaloo A/P Mujahid Manzil has obtained 03 shops in his own name, in the name of his brother and in the name of his nephew. (vii) One of the petitioners namely Manzoor Ahmad Nowpori S/o Mohammad Sidiq Nowpori R/o Sathoo, Barbarshah has expired in 2005 issueless and unmarried. His signatures on the above mentioned SWP after his death as Manzoor Ahmad speaks volumes about the fraudulent intent of the beneficiaries. 5. It is in place to mention that the following petitions are also before the Hon’ble High Court of J&K at Srinagar regarding the same matter: a. CMP No.1203/2012 of OWP No.714/2009 titled Irfan Bashir & others v/s State of J&K & others. b. LPA No.123/2012 titled Khazir Mohammad Kundji & others v/s State of J&K & others. 6. The investigation of the case is in progress. The field verification of enlisted 120 dislocated shopkeepers is going on. Out of 120 beneficiaries, 34 have been examined. Efforts are being made to trace, identify and examine the remaining enlisted beneficiaries.” (underlining supplied) So, it becomes axiomatic from a bare perusal of the aforesaid report on the status of the investigation of the case by the Vigilance Organization till the date of filing thereof before the Court that officers and officials of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation, namely, the then Assistant Revenue Officer, the then Ward Officer Lal Chowk, he then Ward Officer Jawahar Nagar and the then TGR Assistant had prepared a fake list of 120 persons showing them to be dislocated shopkeepers for rehabilitation and allotment of shops in Block-C Hazuri Bagh, Srinagar in lieu of huge consideration of money. Some of these persons had been Government employees working in different departments till recently. Some of these persons had been Government employees working in different departments till recently. Some had been school going children of minor age at the relevant time. one of the enlisted persons, the original writ petitioner no.7 herein, had pre-deceased the filing of the writ petition, obviously, therefore, his signatures have been forged. Two persons, the so-called Presidents of the Association are shown to have managed enlistment of 16 shops in their favour and their relatives. 28. On 02.04.2013, the Court ordered the parties to file their response to the aforesaid status report filed by SSP, Vigilance Organization. 29. Meanwhile, the records show, an application, being CMP no. 994/2013, was filed on behalf of two persons, namely, Farooq Ahmad Zaroo and Bilal Ahmad for their substitution in place of petitioners 5 and 7 in the petition. The grounds for seeking such substitutions were that petitioner no.5 had executed a general irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the applicant Farooq Ahmad Zaroo authorising him to pursue the case on his behalf; whereas applicant no.2, claiming to be the brother of petitioner no.7 in the writ petition, pleaded that he was wrongly impleaded as petitioner as he was already dead on the date of filing of the writ petition. This application was contested on behalf of the respondents by filing objections, inter alia, to the effect that during the investigation, nothing has been found on record to suggest that any of the 120 enlisted beneficiaries, including the nine petitioners of the instant writ petition, had a shop prior to 1993 and, as such, their dislocation/rehabilitation was out of question. And consequently no further transfer of any right on the proposed shops would be tenable. However, the Court, by order dated 16.05.2014, allowed the same, subject to all just exceptions and without prejudice to the respondents’ stand. A similar application, being CMP no.1254/2014, was filed on behalf of one Mohammad Maqbool Khan son of Fazal Ullah Khan R/o Bye-pass, Batamaloo, for his substitution in place of petitioner no.6 on the ground that the said petitioner was appointed as a teacher in Education Department, therefore, he had executed a release deed in favour of the applicant and relinquished all his rights over the shop in his favour. This CMP was allowed by order dated 29.08.2014. This CMP was allowed by order dated 29.08.2014. 29.1 Obviously, the petition on behalf of the original writ petitioner no.7, who was dead at the time of filing of the writ petition, could not have been maintainable. Similarly, from the record it is seen that the original petitioner no.6 had himself been an attorney holder of his brother, Mohammad Maqbool Khan, by virtue of power of attorney dated 30.10.1996 in respect of some shop which, in the power attorney, he is stated to have been running in 1996 at Hazuri Bagh. And then the original petitioner no.6 is shown to have executed the release deed on 09.12.2006 in favour of same Mohammad Maqbool Khan, his brother, the Principal, i.e., the substituted petitioner no.6, in respect of the same shop, now describing him to have been dislocated in 1992. This is the nature of the so-called factual foundation and claim put forth on behalf of these petitioners in a writ petition. 30. So far as the status report filed by the SSP Vigilance Organization, as referred to above, is concerned, the petitioners filed their response thereto on 07.04.2014 stating therein that they have produced evidence by way of documents before the Court which show that they were in possession of shops prior to 1993, and that they had deposited various amounts of money, as asked for by the respondents in terms of order dated 16.06.1994, as well as pursuant to the Court order dated 29.04.2011. Therefore, the Srinagar Municipal Corporation is under an obligation to hand over possession of the shops to the petitioners. It is also stated by them that since they are in no way involved in the FIR no.16/2012, the respondents are bound to hand over possession of nine shops to them. 31. The record shows that, thereafter, the writ petition was admitted to hearing by order dated 04.11.2015 and counsel for the Vigilance Organization was directed to file fresh status of investigation so as to conclude whether the claim set out was genuine. 32. Pursuant to the aforesaid Court order, the status report was filed on behalf of the Vigilance Organization on 02.12.2015. Therein, it was stated as under: “1. That pursuant to the Hon’ble Court directions passed in OWP No.714/2009 titled Irfan Bashir and others Vs. 32. Pursuant to the aforesaid Court order, the status report was filed on behalf of the Vigilance Organization on 02.12.2015. Therein, it was stated as under: “1. That pursuant to the Hon’ble Court directions passed in OWP No.714/2009 titled Irfan Bashir and others Vs. State of J&K and others, a case FIR No.16/2012 stands registered on 28.07.2012 in Police Station, VOK u/S 5(2) of J&K PC Act, Svt. 2006 r/w Section(s) 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 RPC. The case hinges around the false list of 120 dislocated shopkeepers for rehabilitation prepared by the Ex-Assistant Revenue Officer, Ex-Ward Officer Jawahar Nagar and Ex-Ward Officer Lal Chowk of Srinagar Municipal Corporation; 2. That during the course of investigation it has been established that the fake/false list of 120 dislocated shopkeepers including the petitioners were not holding any business or having any shop etc. on rent as such have not paid any rent or municipal shop tax etc. towards Srinagar Municipal Corporation besides their dislocation etc. has not been established as per the records of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation. It is in place to mention here that the petitioners also failed to put forth any evidence/documentary evidence in support of their dislocation or any such tax/rent etc. towards Srinagar Municipal Corporation; 3. That the investigation of the case has been finalized and the challan of the case will be produced before the competent Court at the earliest; 4. That the matter in question is also sub-judice before Hon’ble Double Bench J&K High Court Srinagar in LPA No.123/2012 titled Khazir Mohammad Kundji and others V/s State of J&K and others.” 33. On perusal of the aforesaid status report, the Court on 29.04.2016 directed the State counsel for Vigilance Organization to apprise the Court whether the challan had been filed and also report whether all the petitioners had been named as accused in the challan. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, filed the requisite status report on 10.05.2016, wherein, while reiterating what was stated in the previous status report, quoted above, it was reported and prayed as under: “3. That the investigation of the case has been finalized and the challan of the case FIR No.16/2012 has been produced before Hon’ble Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption Srinagar on 29/12/2015 against 68 accused persons, including petitioners 1-2, 4, 6-9 of the instant petition which is presently sub-judice before the said Hon’ble Court. That the investigation of the case has been finalized and the challan of the case FIR No.16/2012 has been produced before Hon’ble Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption Srinagar on 29/12/2015 against 68 accused persons, including petitioners 1-2, 4, 6-9 of the instant petition which is presently sub-judice before the said Hon’ble Court. However, the petitioner Nos. 3 and 5, i.e., Habibullah Matta and Bashir Ahmad Beigh were not traced on the addressed reflected on the fake/false list of 120 dislocated shopkeepers in question being precise/without full particulars to locate them and accordingly the list of untraced accused beneficiaries including the above said 02 petitioners have been highlighted in the challan submitted before the Hon’ble Anti-Corruption Judge, Srinagar. It is in place to submit here that the petitioners 3 and 5 i.e. Habibullah Matta and Bashir Ahmad Beigh figuring at Serial No.21 and 69 in the fake/false list of 120 dislocated shopkeepers may kindly be directed to cooperate with the investigative agency of VOK so that the further investigation with regard to their involvement, if any, will be determined and concluded on merits.” 34. Meanwhile the petitioners filed MP nos.01/2017 and 02/2017 on 26.05.2017 and 07.06.2017, respectively, with one and the same payer to direct the respondents to reserve nine shops in the ground floor of Block-C of the Municipal Shopping Complex at Hazuri Bagh, Srinagar. When MP no.02/2017 came up for consideration before the Court, the learned counsel for Srinagar Municipal Corporation stated that the dispute with regard to the petitioners for allotment of shops has reference to the amount of premium to be paid by them, otherwise they were found entitled. The Court, accordingly, directed the respondents to reserve nine shops in Block-C of the said Shopping Complex till next date before the Bench. Subsequently, the petitioners made another application, MP no.03/2017 with the prayer to direct the respondents to handover to them the possession of the nine shops reserved for them in the ground floor of Block-C of the Municipal Shopping Complex at Hazuri Bagh, Srinagar. This CMP, however, has remained pending. 35. It is also important to mention here that on 26.12.2017, the learned counsel for the respondent, Municipal Corporation, filed MP no.04/2017 with the prayer to vacate/recall the order dated 08.06.2017. In the said application, certain important facts have been brought on record, which warrant narration herein. This CMP, however, has remained pending. 35. It is also important to mention here that on 26.12.2017, the learned counsel for the respondent, Municipal Corporation, filed MP no.04/2017 with the prayer to vacate/recall the order dated 08.06.2017. In the said application, certain important facts have been brought on record, which warrant narration herein. It has been stated therein that writ petition, OWP no.714/2009, filed by some other persons on the same subject and with almost the same reliefs, was dismissed by the learned Writ Court by judgment dated 25.05.2012 and that, while dismissing the writ petition, the learned writ Court found that 120 persons stated to have been dislocated in the demolition drive included persons of less than 10 years of age at the relevant time in 1991-1992. This raised serious doubts about the authenticity of the persons who were said to have been dislocated which resulted in registering of FIR no.16/2012. Considering the said facts, the learned Writ Court directed the State Vigilance Organization to complete the enquiry into the complaint. It is further stated therein that the aforesaid order dated 25.05.2012 of the learned Writ Court was challenged by some of the writ petitioners in LPA no.103/2012 and the said LPA was dismissed by the Division Bench on 12.06.2012. Thereafter, the remaining 40 writ petitioners therein filed another LPA, being LPA no.123/2012, challenging the very same order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the learned Writ Court in OWP no.714/2009. The said LPA, too, has been dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 18.05.2016. It is further stated that after passing of the order dated 08.06.2017 in the present case, the Corporation took up the matter with the State Vigilance Organization. In response the Organization forwarded the list of accused persons involved in the challan of case FIR no.16/2012 to the Corporation, perusal whereof revealed that seven of the petitioners, viz. petitioners 1, 2, 4, 6 (original petitioner), 7 (original petitioner), 8 and 9 figure as accused in the case shown at serials nos. 9, 10, 37, 21, 29, 57 and 58 thereof. Photocopies of the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the learned Division Bench in LPA no.123/2012 titled Khazir Mohammad Kundji and 39 others v. State of J&K & ors, and the list of accused persons have been placed on record of this CMP. 36. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and thoroughly considered the matter. Photocopies of the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the learned Division Bench in LPA no.123/2012 titled Khazir Mohammad Kundji and 39 others v. State of J&K & ors, and the list of accused persons have been placed on record of this CMP. 36. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and thoroughly considered the matter. The learned counsel for the parties stuck to their respective claims and pleadings narrated above. 37. Essentially, the foundational claim of the petitioners to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition is that they were running their business at Hazuri Bagh, Srinagar, and were dislocated by the respondents. In this regard, the petitioners rely on the letters dated 10.06.1994, 16.06.1994 and 08.10.1999 stated to have been addressed to them, asking them to deposit the first instalment of the premium amount. They further claim to have deposited the first instalments as demanded from them. 38. So, the first and the foremost fact that the petitioners are required to establish is that they were actually and in fact running their businesses in any shop, khokha, kiosk etc., from which they were dislocated by the then Municipal Committee. The investigation into the FIR registered in this connection by the Anticorruption Organization, as noted above, has established that none of the petitioners was in possession of any such business premises, nor had any one of them been dislocated from any business premises, like shop, khokha, kiosk etc. It has also been established that list of 120 persons, purported to be dislocated shopkeepers, which includes the petitioners, is fake and false and this list had been prepared by the Ex-Assistant Revenue Officer, Ex-Ward Officer Jawahar Nagar and Ex-Ward Officer Lal Chowk of Srinagar Municipal Corporation, who have been found to be involved in, and are accused, in the FIR and in the challan ultimately presented before the Court together with the so called dislocated shopkeepers, including the petitioners. There is no denying the fact that the whole matter hinges on this list of 120 persons on the plea that these persons were to be rehabilitated. Once the list is found to be fake, the earth underneath the claim of the petitioners gets removed. 39. There is no denying the fact that the whole matter hinges on this list of 120 persons on the plea that these persons were to be rehabilitated. Once the list is found to be fake, the earth underneath the claim of the petitioners gets removed. 39. It is true that the Srinagar Municipality or the Srinagar Municipal Corporation itself had not unearthed this fraud and, in fact, they seem to have been afoot in the process to make allotment of shops to the persons borne on the list in question. But for the dispute on the fixation of the premium/market value of the shops raised by the petitioners, it is most likely that the Corporation might have even allotted these shops to the enlisted persons, including the petitioners herein. However, once the fraud committed with the connivance of its concerned officials/officers has been established in the Police investigation, the Corporation was and is under no obligation, legally or otherwise, to make allotment to any of the enlisted persons, including the petitioners. 40. Equally once the facts are disputed, this Court, in its writ jurisdiction cannot grant any relief in favour of the petitioners, moreso when seven of them are accused in the aforesaid case and two of them have not been traced by the investigating agency on the addresses given by them, suggesting thereby that these two petitioners do not at all exist or, if they exist, they have hid themselves from Police to evade prosecution. 41. During the Course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the law is that the petitioners are and have to be treated as innocent unless proven guilty, and that, they cannot be deprived of possession of shops on account of pendency of the challan in the court of law. In this regard, it may be observed that it is one thing to say that a person is to be treated as innocent unless proven to be guilty and another thing to expect from a writ court to accept as evidence a document the genuineness of which has not been established in a competent enquiry/police investigation and, has, rather, been found to be fake. It is true that petitioners are relying on letters dated 10.06.1994, 16.06.1994 and 08.10.1999 etc. It is true that petitioners are relying on letters dated 10.06.1994, 16.06.1994 and 08.10.1999 etc. but these documents themselves have come into being by reason of and founded on the fake list of 120 so called dislocated shopkeepers prepared by the named accused-Municipal officials/officers. And it is clearly mentioned in the status reports filed on behalf of the Investigating Agency, that nothing has been found in the Municipal records to show that these 120 persons, including the writ petitioners, had been dislocated from any business premises/place. The claim of the petitioners has thus been found to be false and fake. 42. It may also be mentioned here that even if tomorrow the petitioners are exonerated in the criminal challan for any reason, whatsoever, that fact by itself would not establish the genuineness of the list in question. These documents would have to be proved and substantiated to be genuine in appropriate proceedings by cogent and plausible evidence in accordance with law. 43. Furthermore, it is to be borne in mind that in a writ petition, a petitioner is required to show to the Court that any of his fundamental or legal rights has been infringed. This constitutes a pure point of law which is required to be substantiated by pleading facts and such facts have to be proved by documentary evidence by the party raising the grievance which must appear from the writ petition. If the facts are not proved or are disputed, the Court cannot entertain the point, since a writ can be sought and granted only on admitted facts. In the instant case, the petitioners plead estoppel on the ground of representation alleged to have been extended to them on which they are stated to have acted upon and altered their position by surrendering their business premises and then by depositing instalments of premium on the basis of their enlistment in the list of 120 persons. The very first fact which is foundational to their claim has been established to be untrue or, at least, disputed. Therefore, the representation or assurance is not established. Consequently, the principle of estoppel would not be attracted. As a matter of fact, the very foundational fact to their claim having been found to be untrue, the writ petition itself is not entertainable, and the question of granting any relief therein is impossible. Therefore, the representation or assurance is not established. Consequently, the principle of estoppel would not be attracted. As a matter of fact, the very foundational fact to their claim having been found to be untrue, the writ petition itself is not entertainable, and the question of granting any relief therein is impossible. Besides, as the very list of 120 persons has been found to be fake, any document founded on the said list or connected therewith, including communication no.PS/EO/452 dated 10.06.1994 addressed by the Executive Officer of the erstwhile Srinagar Municipal Committee, to the Revenue Officer, Srinagar Municipality, directing him to enlist the persons mentioned therein, which included the names of petitioners 1 and 2 herein, as a necessary corollary, cannot, by any standards, be relied upon as evidence in support of the petitioners’ claim. 44. There is yet another aspect of the matter which is that equitable and discretionary extraordinary relief under Article 226 can be invoked only by a person who comes to the Court with clean hands and for lawful objective. The petitioners herein have been party to the preparation of fake documents by the Municipal Officers, like Assistant Revenue Officer and Ward Officers concerned and, therefore, they are accused in the criminal case pending adjudication in the court of competent jurisdiction concerning the fraud etc. They, therefore, have approached the Court with unclean hands, making statements built on fake documents. When a false claim or statement is made on a fake document, it is inferable that the claim or the statement has been made with a well planned intention of influencing the mind of the Court on a material aspect in a case for the decision, and cause the Court to entertain an erroneous claim. Similarly, when a claim is founded on a fake document, containing false statement, it is to be treated to have been made intending that such statement contained in the fake document would appear in evidence in the writ proceedings and that such false statement, so appearing in evidence, would influence the Judge in forming an opinion upon such fabricated document(s) to entertain erroneous opinion touching a material point in the proceedings. So, such attempt on the part of a party can assume serious repercussions in dispensation of justice. In any case, in such a situation, the writ petitioner would not deserve any equitable relief. That is, exactly, the situation herein. 45. So, such attempt on the part of a party can assume serious repercussions in dispensation of justice. In any case, in such a situation, the writ petitioner would not deserve any equitable relief. That is, exactly, the situation herein. 45. Last, but not the least, it has been brought on record by learned counsel for the respondent, Srinagar Municipal Corporation, by way of MP no.04/2017 that an identical writ petition, OWP no.714/2009, filed by some other persons on the same subject and with almost the same reliefs, was dismissed by the learned Writ Court by judgment dated 25.05.2012. It has further been brought on record that two LPAs viz. LPA no.103/2012 and LPA no.123/2012 filed against the said judgment dated 25.05.2012 stand dismissed by the Division Bench on 12.06.2012 and 18.05.2016, respectively. In fact, a copy of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 18.05.2016 has been brought on record. Para 2 thereof records that while dismissing the writ petition, the Writ Court found that 120 persons stated to have been dislocated in the demolition drive included the persons who were less than 10 years of age at the time of said drive undertaken in the year 1991-92 which raised serious doubts about the authenticity of the persons who were said to have been dislocated, for which FIR was registered by the Vigilance Organization. Therein, the Court while dismissing the writ petition had directed the State Vigilance Organization to register the FIR and complete the enquiry/investigation into the matter. After the dismissal of the writ petition and the two LPAs, the Vigilance Organization filed several status reports, mentioned and quoted hereinabove, in the instant case. Therein it has clearly been stated that seven of the petitioners, viz. petitioners 1, 2, 4, 6 (original petitioner), 7 (original petitioner), 8 and 9 figure as accused in the case shown at serials nos. 9, 10, 37, 21, 29, 57 and 58 thereof. The other two writ petitioners, namely, petitioners 3 and 5, i.e. Habibullah Matta and Bashir Ahmad Beigh, are reported to be figuring at Serial No.21 and 69 in the fake/false list of 120 alleged to be dislocated shopkeepers and they are reported to be untraced and it has been prayed to directed them to cooperate with the Investigating Agency. The other two writ petitioners, namely, petitioners 3 and 5, i.e. Habibullah Matta and Bashir Ahmad Beigh, are reported to be figuring at Serial No.21 and 69 in the fake/false list of 120 alleged to be dislocated shopkeepers and they are reported to be untraced and it has been prayed to directed them to cooperate with the Investigating Agency. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, the petition on behalf of the original writ petitioner no.7, who was dead at the time of filing of the writ petition, could not have been maintainable. Similarly, as mentioned above, it is seen that the original petitioner no.6 had himself been an attorney holder of his brother, Mohammad Maqbool Khan, by virtue of power of attorney dated 30.10.1996 in respect of some shop which, in the power attorney, he is stated to have been running in 1996 at Hazuri Bagh. And then the original petitioner no.6 is shown to have executed the release deed on 09.12.2006 in favour of same Mohammad Maqbool Khan, his brother, the Principal, i.e., the substituted petitioner no.6, in respect of the same shop, now describing him to have been dislocated in 1992. This casts a serious doubt on the claim of these petitioners. 46. In light of all what has been discussed above, this petition merits dismissal and is, therefore, dismissed together with connected CMP no.01/2017 and 02/2017. Consequently, all interim directions subsisting shall stand vacated. This also disposes of MP no.04/2017, and, as stated by the Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Commission, in his reply filed on 26.05.2010, the respondent viz. Srinagar Municipal Corporation shall refund the amounts received by it, if any, from the petitioners or any one of them, either before filing this writ petition or during its pendency, whether without or under any order of the Court, towards the payment of premium, within a period of two months from today alongwith interest thereon as per Bank rates, applicable from time to time, till the amount is actually refunded. Contempt no.323/2011 47. In view of the dismissal of the main writ petition and the connected CMPs, and vacation of the interim directions, this Contempt petition would not survive; it is accordingly dismissed. Any direction passed therein shall abide by the decision in the main petition and the contempt petition.