JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the following direction has been sought for: (i) To direct the respondents to reallot the shop no.A7 situated at Bazar Tand, district Khunti in favour of the petitioner since the same was allotted in his favour on 29.03.1990 and the petitioner was making payment of regular monthly rent to the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Khunti. (ii) To direct the respondents to give possession of the shop no.A7 to the petitioner as he has been illegally evicted from the said shop. (iii) For cancellation of allotment of shop no.A7 of Gupta Stores made in favour of one Pappu Kumar Gupta-respondent no.5. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that a shop being Shop no.A7 was allotted in favour of the petitioner by the order of the Secretary, Agriculture and Market Committee, Khunti vide letter dated 29.03.1990 for a monthly rent of Rs.200 which has been paid by the petitioner regularly. The competent authority has issued a licence to operate as a trader vide Licence no.8/2014-15 which was operating till 31.03.2015 subject to renewal but without any fault on the part of the petitioner a show cause Notice was issued and served upon him dated 01.11.2014 asking the petitioner to explain as to why his allotment of shop be not cancelled on the ground that the same has been subletted to other person. The petitioner has given reply on 05.11.2014 wherein the allegation about subletting the shop has been disputed. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that no decision has been taken in terms of the aforesaid show cause and the petitioner has been evicted forcibly and subsequently the shop in question has been allotted in favour of the respondent no.5 vide order dated 02.09.2015. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that no decision has been taken in terms of the aforesaid show cause and the petitioner has been evicted forcibly and subsequently the shop in question has been allotted in favour of the respondent no.5 vide order dated 02.09.2015. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner has forcibly been evicted during subsistence period of the licence to operate his trade in the shop in question and the same even though has been utilized for the trading purpose in pursuance to the licence issued in this regard on the false allegation of subletting the same in favour of others, there is forcefully eviction while on the other hand no decision has been taken on the said show cause which is nothing but only to accommodate the respondent no.5 and as such the entire action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary and improper. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent market committee, wherein, inter alia stand has been taken by reiterating the stand taken in the show cause and in addition thereto, it has been stated that in the meeting held on 27.05.2015 the shop in question has been allotted in favour of one Pradeep Prasad i.e. only for the reason that the market committee has been constituted for collecting the tax by utilization of the shop if allotted in favour of the person concerned after following due process but the licence to trade since has expired on 31.03.2015 and no application has been submitted for renewal of the licence as per the condition stipulated in the licence, therefore, the respondents while allotting the shop in favour of the respondent no.5 has committed no illegality. 5. In response, the petitioner has filed reply to the said counter affidavit wherein at paragraph 10, it has been stated that though the licence of the petitioner has expired on 31.03.2015, however, the petitioner had given application to the authorities for its renewal but the same has not been accepted and as such there is no laches lies on the part of the petitioner. 6. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of their rival submissions, the fact which is not in dispute in this case is that a shop being Shop No.A7 has been allotted in favour of the petitioner by the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Khunti on 29.03.1990 and the petitioner came to possession and started making payment of the monthly rent. The petitioner has got licence to operate as trader, the copy of the licence being Licence No.8/2014-15 has been annexed as Annexure-2 wherefrom it is evident that the petitioner is required to follow the terms and conditions as stipulated in the licence which has been made operating till 31.03.2015 subject to its renewal as also that the condition of the licence is not transferable. The market committee has issued a show cause against the petitioner on 01.11.2014 on the ground of not operating the trade business from the allotted shop which has been found in course of surprise inspection conducted by the Special Officer on 17.10.2014 and in course thereof it transpires that the said shop has been subletted or sold out in favour of the third party and accordingly the petitioner has been called upon to give reply with the period of seven days as to why the allotment of the said shop is not cancelled. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 05.11.2014 wherein the allegation of subletting of the shop has been disputed. Subsequently on 01.12.2015 the shop has been allotted by way of lottery in favour of the respondent no.5. It is only thereafter the present writ petition has been filed questioning the allegation of the shop in favour of the respondent no.5 as also allowed the petitioner to operate the trading business from the said shop. 7. The question which is to be seen by this Court in the present case is that, admittedly the valid period of licence for operating as trader was up to 31.03.2015, however, subject to renewal caluse. Admittedly the day when the show cause was issued on 01.11.2014, in pursuance to the same, the reply has been submitted on 05.11.2014 but no decision has been taken by the authority in terms of the show cause notice dated 01.11.2014. Admittedly the day when the show cause was issued on 01.11.2014, in pursuance to the same, the reply has been submitted on 05.11.2014 but no decision has been taken by the authority in terms of the show cause notice dated 01.11.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that after issuance of the show cause he has been forcibly evicted but he has not chosen to make any grievance against the said forcible eviction since nothing has been stated in the writ petition causing prejudice about the said action of the authorities. In the meanwhile, the valid period of licence has expired on 31.03.2015. This Court has found no documents available on record making therein requisition to the authority for renewal of the licence, however, statement has been made at paragraph 10 to the rejoinder to the effect that the petitioner had approached to the authority for subletting the application for renewal but that has not been accepted. The question herein is that, even accepting that the petitioner has approached to the authority for submission of application for renewal of the licence to trade, even if it is not accepted the petitioner ought to have submitted the said application through other mode i.e. through post in order to show his bona fide then only the Court would have in position to consider the fact about laches committed on the part of the respondent committee, taking into consideration the pendency of the said application on the basis of the fact that if application would have been submitted the same either to be rejected or to be allowed, but the fact herein is that no such application has been brought on record by the petitioner and therefore, merely on the ground of statement made in paragraph 10 to the rejoinder affidavit that too before this Court, no such conclusion can be arrived at by this Court with respect to the alleged laches committed by the respondent committee. The fact remains that after 31.03.2015 the validity of licence to operate as trader has expired and as such the petitioner has got no right to remain in the possession of the shop after 31.03.2015. The fact remains that after 31.03.2015 the validity of licence to operate as trader has expired and as such the petitioner has got no right to remain in the possession of the shop after 31.03.2015. Further in absence of any application for renewal, no direction can be passed by this Court for taking such decision about renewal or consideration of allotment of any other shop after allotment of shop in question in favour of the respondent no.5. The petitioner has also questioned the order of allotment dated 01.12.2015. However, none appears for the respondent no.5 although notice issued to him by virtue of order dated 11.04.2019 which is duly been received as would appear from office note dated 15.05.2019 as also the order dated 16.05.2019 passed in present case but not chosen to appear on his behalf. The order of allotment dated 02.09.2015 has also been questioned by the petitioner, but the facts herein as transpired from the counter affidavit that after the expiry of the valid period of licence on or after 31.03.2015 the shop having fallen vacant the respondent committee has resorted to the procedure for its allotment in order to earn revenue and in course thereof through the process of lottery the shop has been allotted in favour of the respondent no.5 and as such this Court finds no illegality in allotting the same in favour of the respondent no.5. 8. This Court after taking into consideration the entirety as discussed herein above is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for passing positive direction in his favour. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.