ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. M.P. Dixit, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Indrajeet Singh, learned advocate for the private respondent No. 4 and Ms. Binita Singh, learned SC-28 for the State. 2. The petitioner had initially challenged the order dated 05.06.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Special Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee (since dissolved), Samastipur (respondent No. 2) as contained in Memo No. 1400 on 19.06.2013, whereby the application of the petitioner for recall of an earlier order of eviction from the shop which was allotted to him several years ago was rejected and a direction was issued to hand over the keys of the shop within 24 hours. The petitioner had also by the aforesaid order been directed to pay the rent of the shop till the date of handing over the keys. 3. There are few undisputed facts which need be noted for the final determination of this writ petition. 4. The shop in question was allotted to the petitioner in November, 1999. During the course of an inspection, it was found that the shop in question was let-out to somebody else and from him a higher rent was being exacted. This led to issuance of a notice to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Special Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee (since dissolved) Samastipur (respondent No. 2) on 20.11.2011. 5. By the aforesaid show-cause notice, the petitioner was asked to furnish his reply by 28.11.2011 and in the event of failure to reply to such notice, it was intimated to him that the allotment would stand terminated automatically by 29-11.2011. 6. Even though a short time was given to the petitioner to reply to the show-cause notice with respect to the allotted shop having been sub-let to another on a higher rental, the notice was replied by the petitioner on 28.11.2011. The reply to the notice has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition in which there is an endorsement of the receipt of such reply dated 28.11.2011. 7. The aforesaid reply merely recounted that the petitioner had not violated anyone of the terms of the allotment and that the shop was never sub-let to another person. 8. It further appears from the records that the concerned Officer, holding that no such reply was filed by the petitioner within the stipulated time, cancelled the allotment of the shop of the petitioner by his order dated 22.08.2012. 9. 8. It further appears from the records that the concerned Officer, holding that no such reply was filed by the petitioner within the stipulated time, cancelled the allotment of the shop of the petitioner by his order dated 22.08.2012. 9. The cancellation was only on the ground that the petitioner did not comply with the direction of filing his reply to the show-cause notice by the stipulated date. 10. According to the petitioner, this order was passed because of an error of record in as much as the petitioner had furnished his reply to the concerned authority well within time. 11. Nonetheless, a separate petition of recall was filed by the petitioner indicating that in the event of his met with an accident, he had entrusted the task of running the shop to his brother and categorically denied the assertion of the authority concerned that the shop was sub-let to another. 12. The aforesaid recall petition was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Samastipur by order dated 05.06.2013 holding that the petitioner had not produced any evidence with respect to his running the shop and not sub-letting it to somebody else. The order is also based upon a report furnished by an accountant, who, after a detailed enquiry, had found that the shop was sub-let to somebody else for running his business. 13. Against the aforesaid order dated 05.06.2013, the petitioner preferred a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 14223 of 2013. 14. In the meantime, an agreement was entered into by the Marketing Board with private respondent No. 4 and pursuant to such agreement, on deposit of Rs. 42,240/- on 24.07.2013, the shop in question was allotted to private respondent No. 4. However, because of the dispute between the Marketing Board and the petitioner, the possession of the shop could not been given to private respondent No. 4, which goaded him to file a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 12103 of 2015, seeking delivery of possession of the shop as the respondent No. 4 had already performed his part of the obligation for allotment of the shop in his name. 15. Both the writ applications viz. the one filed by the petitioner viz. C.W.J.C. No. 14223 of 2013 and the other filed by private respondent No. 4 viz. C.W.J.C. No. 12103 of 2015 were heard together and disposed off by a common order dated 15.11.2017. 16. 15. Both the writ applications viz. the one filed by the petitioner viz. C.W.J.C. No. 14223 of 2013 and the other filed by private respondent No. 4 viz. C.W.J.C. No. 12103 of 2015 were heard together and disposed off by a common order dated 15.11.2017. 16. The writ application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he had not resorted to due diligence in approaching the Court at an appropriate time; rather it was a case of inordinate delay and laches on his part. 17. As a natural corollary to the aforesaid rejection of the prayer of the petitioner, the writ petition of private respondent No. 4 was allowed with a direction to the respondent/authority to give effect to the agreement dated 22.07.2013, allotting the shop in question to private respondent No. 4. The respondents were also directed to ensure that the keys of the shop in question is handed over to private respondent No. 4 forthwith. 18. The aforesaid order of dismissal of the writ application of the petitioner was challenged in appeal before a Division Bench of this Court vide L.P.A. No. 1680 of 2017. 19. The Division Bench vide order dated 13.03.2018 came to the view that it was not correct of the learned Writ Court to reject the writ application of the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches, more so when he had replied the show-cause notice in time and which was wrongly held not to have been replied and that shortly after the recall petition was rejected by the competent authority, a writ petition was filed within a couple of weeks. In that event, the Division Bench was of the view that the writ application of the petitioner could not have been dismissed on grounds of laches and delay. 20. The appeal preferred by the petitioner therefore was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Writ Court for disposing off the writ petition on merits, in accordance with law after affording hearing to all concerned. 21. Hence, the present hearing of the writ application of the petitioner as also of respondent No. 4. 22. Mr. 20. The appeal preferred by the petitioner therefore was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Writ Court for disposing off the writ petition on merits, in accordance with law after affording hearing to all concerned. 21. Hence, the present hearing of the writ application of the petitioner as also of respondent No. 4. 22. Mr. Indrajeet Singh, learned advocate for private respondent No. 4 has submitted that the Appellate Court was not informed about the order having been passed in favour of private respondent No. 4 in the writ application preferred by him, directing the respondents to hand over the keys of the shop in question to him forthwith. Apart from this, a basic objection has been raised by him that in the event of the order of the writ court in C.W.J.C. No. 12103 of 2015 having taken effect, the hands of the clock ought not to be turned back. 23. Ms. Binita Singh, learned SC-28 for the State however has submitted that no doubt the matter has been remitted to the Writ Court for a fresh determination of the dispute but the facts remain that the shop which was allotted to the petitioner was not being run by the allottee/petitioner; rather, it was sub-let to another. It has further been submitted that even assuming that the shop was not sub-let or was given to somebody else for running the business, there was no evidence on record to indicate that the shop was being used for any commercial purpose. The additional argument raised on behalf of the State is that once a positive order was passed by the Writ Court for taking the keys of the shop in question from the petitioner and hand it over to private respondent No. 4, the State did not have any option of going slow in the matter and not obeying the aforesaid direction of this Court. 24. It has further been submitted that when the matter came up before the Writ Court after remand, the same was not prosecuted by the petitioner diligently and the petition stood dismissed for non-prosecution. It was only after the dismissal of the case for non-prosecution that an order was passed for recovery of the keys of the shop in question and handing it over to private respondent No. 4. 25. It was only after the dismissal of the case for non-prosecution that an order was passed for recovery of the keys of the shop in question and handing it over to private respondent No. 4. 25. It may be noted here that the writ petition which stood dismissed for non-prosecution was restored to its original file by this Court vide order dated 05.04.2019. 26. From the perusal of the records and on consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, it becomes very obvious that the respondent/State did not act fairly in the matter. 27. The indicators for the order impugned not being in tune with law are; (a) not providing any information to the petitioner about the basis for coming to the conclusion that the shop in question was sub-let to another for a higher rent; (b) a very short time was given to the petitioner to respond to the show-cause notice; (c) taking a decision of cancellation of the allotment by not adverting to the show-cause reply and holding that the reply had not been furnished within the stipulated time; (d) the recall petition was not properly adjudicated and in the event of the petitioner demonstrating that the shop in question was run by his brother because of his having met with a serious accident and the evidence of sale and purchase from that shop as also some other documents and such documents not been at all taken into consideration etc. 28. Cumulatively, these aspects do make out a case that the concerned respondent was in hurry to cancel the allotment of the shop. 29. The aforesaid impression gets further hardened by the fact that an order was passed for immediately taking over of the shop in question and handing it over to the private respondent No. 4 on dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution. 30. The State was aware of the fact that the ground of laches and delay, which was the basis for dismissal of the writ application of the petitioner initially did not find favour with the Appellate Court and the matter had been remitted to the Writ Court for fresh determination. In that event, if the writ application was dismissed for non-prosecution, the respondent ought to have given the petitioner some time, expecting a petition for restoration of the writ application. In that event, if the writ application was dismissed for non-prosecution, the respondent ought to have given the petitioner some time, expecting a petition for restoration of the writ application. Even otherwise, if a matter has been referred to a writ Court on remand by Appellate Court, it ought not to have been dismissed for non-prosecution on the first date. 31. However, without referring to the aforesaid aspect, what this Court has found out from the perusal of the records is that the issues raised by the petitioner was never adjudicated by the respondents in a cogent and legal manner. 32. True it that the private respondent No. 4 cannot be faulted with on any score. If a shop is being allotted by an authority, anyone who is desirous of entering into an agreement for getting that shop allotted can apply for the same and the same has been done by the private respondent No. 4. The agreement was executed after the private respondent No. 4 paid the requisite fee of Rs. 42,240/-. It was only rightful and legal for him to have approached this Court in the event of his not being given the possession of the shop in question even after the execution of the agreement. Respondent No. 4 is definitely not concerned with any dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent/State. Nonetheless, his right to enter into the shop becomes matures only if the right of the petitioner is extinguished. 33. The claim of the petitioner has wrongly and illogically been rejected. 34. The orders passed by the respondent/Sub- Divisional Officer-cum-Special Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee (since dissolved) Samastipur do not indicate any reason for rejecting the grounds raised by the petitioner. 35. For an order to be sustained in the eyes of law, it must be an informed order, meaning thereby that it must give reasons and the reasons have to be in relation to the issues raised by the claimants. Merely rejecting the plea of the petitioner on the ground that reply was not filed within the stipulated time, which statement is factually incorrect and the suspicion that the shop in question has been sub-let, would not be sufficient unless the grounds raised by the petitioner are adverted to in the order is unsustainable. Merely rejecting the plea of the petitioner on the ground that reply was not filed within the stipulated time, which statement is factually incorrect and the suspicion that the shop in question has been sub-let, would not be sufficient unless the grounds raised by the petitioner are adverted to in the order is unsustainable. It is precisely for this reason that the Appellate Court found that the issues raised by the petitioner was required to be adjudicated and it was improper for the Writ Court to have shut-out the petitioner on the ground of laches and delay, which was also factually incorrect. 36. The petitioner had taken recourse to the legal remedy in as much as an application for recall of the order of cancellation of allotment was filed well in time and on rejection of the aforesaid application, a serious challenge to the same was put up by way of a writ application. It is quite different that the writ petition could not be taken up for hearing in the year of the filing or for many years later and it was decided only in the year 2017. For such delay in disposal of the challenge of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be blamed. 37. This reasoning is echoed very pithily in the appellate order dated 13.03.2015. 38. Taking a holistic view of the matter, including the right of the respondent No. 4 having been concretized in the meanwhile, this Court provides that interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is restored the possession of the shop in question within a period of one week of the passing of this order/production of a copy of this order before the concerned authority. 39. The petitioner as well as private respondent No. 4 shall be afforded an opportunity of pleading their respective cases before the competent authority within a period of four weeks of the restoration of the possession of the petitioner to the shop, whereupon a final speaking order shall be passed. 40. The private respondent No. 4 shall be returned the amount of Rs. 42,240/- along with an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation within a reasonable period of time but definitely not later than the restoration of possession of the shop to the petitioner. 41. 40. The private respondent No. 4 shall be returned the amount of Rs. 42,240/- along with an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation within a reasonable period of time but definitely not later than the restoration of possession of the shop to the petitioner. 41. The State, with the approval of private respondent No. 4 can also explore the possibility of keeping the aforesaid amount on lien which would be returned to the private respondent No. 4 in case the claim of the petitioner is allowed and in the event, the allotment is given to private respondent No. 4, the amount shall again be deposited by him. This arrangement would be subject to the approval of private respondent No. 4 who would have the final choice of either allowing the money to remain with the respondents or to be deposited again in the event of the allotment being given to him on the claim of the petitioner being rejected. 42. The entire exercise must be completed within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. 43. The writ petition stands disposed off.