JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the Letter No.91 (ii) dated 07.02.2015 issued by respondent No.4, the Circle Officer, Simdega by which the petitioner has been directed to be evicted from the shop being Shop No.89 by depositing arrear amount by 22.02.2015. 2. It is the case of the petitioner as per the pleadings made in the writ petition that the Shop No.89 situated in Simdega Market Complex, Simdega was originally allotted to respondent No.5 in which he has never started any business and has subletted the shop in favour of the petitioner on rent and the petitioner has started running his business on the said shop after taking loan from the Bank and electric connection in his name. 3. A general inquiry has been conducted against the allotment of the shop in question and to look into the subletting of the shop in favour of the others and the matter came before this Court in writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4859 of 2004 (Abdul Kalam vs. State of Jharkhand). This Court has passed an order upon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directing him to 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 and after providing opportunity of hearing to cancel the allotment and re-allot to the needy persons including the persons who shall be evicted. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that after the said inquiry having been conducted by the competent authority in pursuance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner since was in occupation has made an application for allotment of the shop in question. The same has been taken into consideration in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4859 of 2004 as also 1084 of 2010 (Annexure-1 & 2 respectively). The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Simdega has considered the application submitted by the petitioner and recommend for allotment of shop. The petitioner has also been provided with the possession over the shop in question which would be evident from the order, reference of which has been made at page-22 to the brief. The petitioner has started running his business over the said shop. 5. The petitioner has also been provided with the possession over the shop in question which would be evident from the order, reference of which has been made at page-22 to the brief. The petitioner has started running his business over the said shop. 5. The respondent No.5 being aggrieved with the decision taken by the authority for allotment of the said shop, has approached to this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.6315 of 2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 05.07.2012 giving liberty to the petitioner to make representation for consideration of re-allotment of shop if available to the persons who have been found to be needy. 6. The petitioner thereafter has been served with the impugned order dated 07.02.2015 issued by the Circle Officer, Simdega wherein the reference of an order of allotment dated 27.10.2014 has been made in favour of the respondent No.5 and in consequence thereof, the petitioner has been directed to vacate the possession of the shop in question by clearing the dues up to 22.02.2015. The petitioner against the order dated 07.02.2015 is before this Court by way of instant writ petition. 7. Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following issues in assailing the order dated 07.02.2015 : (i) the order of eviction dated 07.02.2015 is absolutely illegal in view of the fact that the Sub-Divisional Officer has passed an order of allotment of the shop in question in favour of the petitioner and so long it is in operation, the petitioner cannot be directed to be evicted from the shop in question; (ii) the respondent No.5 cannot be said to be a needy person since he has sublettted the shop in favour of the petitioner right from the date of the allotment; (iii) the petitioner is running the business in the said shop and at the time of seizing, his articles lying inside the shop has also been seized; (iv) before passing an order of eviction, the principles of natural justice has not been followed. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned AC to SC-VI appearing for the State of Jharkhand has opposed the submission and ground agitated by the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner cannot claim right over the shop in question in view of the fresh allotment made on 27.10.2014 as has been annexed as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega. 9. The allotment made in favour of the petitioner as has been agitated by the petitioner said to have passed in terms of the order passed by this Court on 31.01.2011 based upon the order passed in W.P.(C) No.4859 of 2004 has wrongly been interpreted by the Sub-Divisional Officer as would appear from the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 22.03.2011 wherein it has been considered while considering the allotment of the shop to be made in favour of the petitioner by making an observation about the order passed by this Court presuming it to give preference while this Court has passed an order only with respect to providing opportunity of hearing, therefore, the consideration made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega in allotting the shop in question in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be in pursuance to the order passed by this Court since this Court has not passed any direction for allotment of shop in favour of the petitioner. His further submission is that the order dated 07.02.2015 is in consequence of the order of allotment dated 27.10.2014, the order by which the shop in question has again been allotted in favour of the respondent No.5 and the aforesaid order of allotment dated 27.10.2014 has not been assailed and as such so long as the said order is in operation the petitioner cannot be allowed to remain in possession of the shop otherwise there will be conflict of interest in between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 as because the respondent No.5 will claim allotment on the basis of the order of allotment dated 27.10.2014, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Mr. Sanjay Kr. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 has accepted the arguments advanced by the respondent-State. 10. Mr. Sanjay Kr. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 has accepted the arguments advanced by the respondent-State. He in addition to that submission, has submitted that the petitioner has got no valid order of allotment in his favour and he now wants to take advantage of the situation which had arisen at the time of handing over the shop in his favour due to some financial constraint which the respondent No.5 was facing. His further submission is that since the order of allotment has been made in his favour as would appear from the order dated 27.10.2014, as such, the right of the petitioner has been created by virtue of the aforesaid order dated 27.10.2014 and in consequence thereof, the petitioner has got no right to remain in possession of the shop in question. 11. This Court has heard the parties at length. The record of the writ petition reflects some undisputed facts which are :-the petitioner, admittedly, was not possessing any right over the shop in question initially since it is his case that he came in possession of the shop by virtue of subletting the same by the respondent No.5 in whose favour the shop is being allotted after following due procedure. In the market complex altogether 250 shops have been constructed but most of the shops since have been subletted in favour of others, therefore, the same has been brought to the notice of the competent authority and in pursuance thereof, action has been decided to be taken. The aforesaid decision of taking action against such allottees who are not utilizing the shop personally/individually, a writ petition was filed being W.P.(C) No.4859 of 2004 (Abdul Kalam vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.) wherein the issue pertains to shop No.135. This Court after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties in the aforesaid writ petition has passed an order directing the Sub-Divisional Officer to conduct an inquiry personally 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. The illegal occupants of the shops have been directed to be noticed and to be evicted after providing opportunity of hearing. The illegal occupants of the shops have been directed to be noticed and to be evicted after providing opportunity of hearing. The part of the order for ready reference is referred hereinbelow: “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 leasee or on the basis of purchaser. All those persons who are illegal occupying the shops and running the business shall be notices 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 with a period of six months from today.” 12. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in pursuance to the aforesaid direction passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4859 of 2004 has issued individual notices upon such allottees who have been found to be under the category of subject matter of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4859 of 2004, one of which was the respondent No.5. Decision taken by the authority for auctioning the respective shops has been challenged in W.P.(C) No.6315 of 2006 while disposing of the said writ petition vide order dated 05.07.2012, this Court has declined to interfere with the impugned order, however, given liberty to the respondent No.5 along with others to make representation for consideration of re-allotment of shops if available to persons who are found to be needy. 13. The Sub-Divisional Officer has considered the representation filed by the respondent No.5 in pursuance to the order passed in W.P.(C) No.6315 of 2006 (Annexure-5) and allotted the shop in question in favour of the respondent No.5 vide order dated 27.10.2014, reference of which has been made in the impugned order dated 07.02.2015 as also the copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4. The Circle Officer, in pursuance to the order of allotment dated 27.10.2014, has issued notice to the petitioner as was issued on 07.02.2015 directing the petitioner to vacate the shop in question by depositing the arrear amount by 22.02.2015 failing which the shop in question would be vacated by deputing police force and the expenditure incurred upon it shall be recoverable. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition inter alia on the grounds as referred above. 14. The petitioner is questioning the order of eviction dated 07.02.2015. The petitioner has not challenged the order of allotment dated 27.10.2014 basis upon which the order of eviction dated 07.02.2015, as per Annexure-6, has been issued, hence, the order of eviction dated 07.02.2015 is not an independent decision of eviction rather it is the consequence of order of allotment dated 27.10.2014 by which the shop in question has been allotted in favour of the respondent No.5. 15. The petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court that the allotment of the shop has already been made in favour of the petitioner as per the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega as would appear from the extract of the order sheet annexed as Annexure-3, relevant is at page-22 to the brief. 16. There is no doubt about the fact that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega has passed an order of allotment in favour of the petitioner as also the possession of shop has been handed over in his favour but the question herein is that even accepting that there is an order of allotment and the subsequent order of allotment dated 27.10.2014 has been made in faovur of the respondent No.5 but the same has not been assailed, in that situation, can the petitioner be given any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, it needs to refer herein that under the writ jurisdiction no relief can be granted, if not prayed. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2010) 12 SCC 609 , at paragraph 15, 16 and 17 has held as under: “15. It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana this Court has observed as under: (SCC pp. 542-43, para 13) “13. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana this Court has observed as under: (SCC pp. 542-43, para 13) “13. … In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. … there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading i.e. a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.” 16. Similar view has been reiterated in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, National Buildings Construction Corpn. v. S. Raghunathan, Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani, Chitra Kumari v. Union of India and State of U.P. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey. 17. In Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh this Court observed as under: (SCC p. 140, para 12) “12. … The findings in the absence of necessary pleading and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law.” Reference may also be made to the judgment rendered in the case of State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 , wherein at paragraph 55 it has been held as: “55. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is a settled legal proposition that “as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted”. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. It is a settled legal proposition that “as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted”. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real dispute between the parties to narrow the area of conflict and to see just where the two sides differ.” 17. The Sub-Divisional Officer, while allotting the shop in question dated 27.10.2014 as would be evident from Annexure-D rightly or wrongly has allotted the shop and by virtue of the said order a right has been created in favour of the respondent No.5 and so long as the said instrument creating right in faovur of the respondent No.5 is in operation, the petitioner cannot be extended with any relief. 18. It is also not the case and it cannot be a case of the petitioner that he was not knowing about the order dated 27.10.2014 since the reference of the said order has been made in the impugned order of eviction dated 07.02.2015 but even though the same has not been assailed. 19. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the order dated 07.02.2015 since is the consequence of the order dated 27.10.2014 by which the shop in question has been allotted in favour of the respondent No.5 even though the order of eviction dated 07.02.2015 would be interfered with, it will be of no avail. 20. This Court has also gathered from the pleadings made in the writ petition that at the time of allotment of the shop in question, the respondent No.5 has subletted the shop in favour of the petitioner which also does suggest that the respondent No.5 cannot be said to be a needy person as has been decided by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4859 of 2004 to allot the shop in favour of the needy person and as such keeping the aforesaid fact into consideration, this Court deem it fit and proper to direct the Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega to restrain the respondent No.5 in subletting the shop in favuor of other and in case of that eventuality, the allotment made in favour of the respondent No.5 shall be cancelled by following due procedure of law. 21. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed of.