JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- "i) That the respondents may be ordered to produce the entire record regarding construction and allotment of shops detailed above for the perusal of this Hon'ble Court. ii) That since allotment of shops has not been made on the basis of any rational, valid and legal policy and criteria, therefore, all the allotments as made may kindly be set-aside and quashed. iii) That the correctness and validity of the allotment of shops may kindly be examined by this Hon'ble Court so that unlawful allotment of shops whatsoever is found to have been made may be setaside and quashed. (iv) That necessary orders may kindly be passed so that remaining shops 3 in number are allotted to the present Petitioners in the order of seniority and the 4th Petitioner may be ordered to be allotted a shop allotment whereof may be cancelled by this Hon'ble Court or by the respondents out of the shops already allotted in favour of the person who is/are not found eligible for such allotment." 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are earning their livelihood by running small business in rehris/pharis/thadis for the last many years. Large numbers of people have been running their small business similar to the petitioners by way of thadis/pharis/rehris over the land comprised in Khasra No. 2140/1997/803, measuring 5250.33 sq. meters, which area falls within Municipal Council, Hamirpur. 3. Petitioner No. 1, Balbir Chand, started running his business in the month of June, 1987, on the payment of Tehbazari fees to the Municipal Council, Hamirpur. Initially, the Tehbazari fees was 30/- per month, which up to the year 2012 stood increased to 200/- per month. Similarly, petitioner No. 2, Tirath Ram, also started his business at the aforesaid place in the year 1991. Petitioner No. 3, Piar Chand, started his business in the year 1991 on payment of Tehbazari fees and petitioner No. 4, Shakti Chand, started his business in the year 1988 on payment of Tehbazari fees. 4. Their grievance is that the respondents started construction work of shops over Khasra No. 2140/1997/803, measuring 5250.33 sq. metres during the year 2011-12 with the intent that shops were to be provided to all the persons running their business by way of thadis/pharis/rehris. 4. Their grievance is that the respondents started construction work of shops over Khasra No. 2140/1997/803, measuring 5250.33 sq. metres during the year 2011-12 with the intent that shops were to be provided to all the persons running their business by way of thadis/pharis/rehris. As per the petitioners, though, they were not having the complete details of the resolution which stood passed by the Municipal Council, Hamirpur, in this regard and also with regard to the collection of funds, yet, initially a demand was set up by Municipal Council, Hamirpur, for collection of funds from persons who were running their business over the land mentioned above in the manner explained in the petition. Though, initially a sum of 82,000/- was to be taken from the beneficiaries, however, the same was subsequently raised to 85,000/-. According to the petitioners, the procedure adopted by the respondents to set up this demand of 85,000/- from the people running their business over the area in lieu of the allotment of shops to them, was arbitrary and without adopting any proper and set procedure in this regard. It is further their case that they were never called upon to pay the amount of 85,000/-, and therefore, could not apply for the shops in question. Their inquiries revealed that no criteria stood adopted by the respondents for the allotment of the shops whereas the information garnered by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act demonstrated that the shops in question had been constructed with the aid of funds provided by the Government, but the allotment of the shops was not made on the basis of any rational or equitable and just criteria. As per the petitioners, the allotment was made unlawfully and in certain cases, both father and son were given the benefit of allotment of shops, who otherwise were persons with means, whereas persons like the petitioners, who were actually entitled for the allotment of the shops, stood discriminated against. It is in this background that the petition has been filed inter alia with the prayers that the allotment of the shops in issue be quashed and set aside and directions be passed that three shops which were still vacant be allotted to the petitioners in the order of seniority and 4th petitioner be allotted a shop by cancelling the allotment of the shops which stood allotted in arbitrary manner. 5. 5. Reply filed by respondent No. 1 is to the effect that said respondent has been wrongly and unnecessarily arrayed as respondent, because all actions, subject matter of the writ petition, were taken by the local authorities, i.e. respondent No. 2, without any reference to or approval from respondent No. 1. Said respondent also stated that it had no objection in case the Court intended to examine the correctness of the allotment of the shops. 6. Reply filed to the petition on behalf of respondent No. 2 demonstrates that in the preliminary submissions it stood mentioned that the sole authority for the purpose of allotment of shops, subject matter of the writ petition, was with the Committee of the Society for Promotion of Sports, Culture, Education and other Developmental Activities, which was a Society registered under Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006 and was headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur. It was further mentioned that in a meeting of the Society held on 17.09.2012, it was decided that the allotment of the shops be made to such persons, who were displaced from the places where shops had been constructed for the purpose of their rehabilitation, provided that the allotments were made to the bonafide residents of Himachal Pradesh and only one member of a family was allotted a shop. It is further the stand of the said respondent that in the meeting of the house of the Municipal Council, Hamirpur, held on 04.08.2012, a list of 78 beneficiaries was prepared vide resolution of the same date for the purpose of allotment of the shops constructed in L-Shape Shopping Complex, Main Bazaar to Sabzi Mandi. Those khokha holders were rehabilitated by way of allotment of shops who were disturbed/dislocated on account of the construction of the shops. It was also mentioned that the petitioners were not running their business on the place where construction activity was carried out and none of them were disturbed or dislocated from the places where they were carrying out their business, therefore, they were not entitled for the allotment of the shops. The dislocated/displaced persons deposited a sum of 85,000/- as construction cost for the construction of the shopping complex and the amount deposited by a beneficiary was to be deducted from the monthly rent after paying 12 month regular payment of rent as per the terms of the agreement. The dislocated/displaced persons deposited a sum of 85,000/- as construction cost for the construction of the shopping complex and the amount deposited by a beneficiary was to be deducted from the monthly rent after paying 12 month regular payment of rent as per the terms of the agreement. It has been denied by the said respondent that the allotment of the shops was done in an arbitrary manner as alleged and as the petitioners were not disturbed or dislocated by the construction work of the shopping complex, therefore, it was reiterated that they were not entitled for the allotment of the shops. 7. The response filed by respondent No. 3 is also to the same effect and it stands mentioned therein that the area where the petitioners were carrying out their business did not fall under the planning area and the petitioners had not been disturbed due to the construction work of the shopping complex. 8. By way of rejoinder filed by the petitioners to the reply filed by respondent No. 2, though mentioned as rejoinder to the response of respondents No. 1 and 2, petitioners have reiterated their case that they have been wrongly excluded from the list of beneficiaries with regard to allotment of the shops and they reiterated that shops were allotted in an arbitrary manner by the respondents. During the pendency of this petition, certain directions were passed from time to time by the Court upon pleas raised by the parties, in compliance whereto, affidavits and compliance reports were filed by the department. It is relevant to refer to the compliance report filed by respondent No. 2 in terms of the order passed by this Court dated 10.05.2018, relevant portion whereof is being quoted herein below:- "4. That it is submitted that in compliance to orders dated 10.05.2018, a meeting was convened on 23.05.2018 by joining the present petitioners in proceedings for amicable settlement of issue. 5. At the outset it is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the shopping complex was constructed so as to rehabilitate the street vendors and it is pertinent to bring to the notice of the Hon'ble Court that petitioner namely Sh. 5. At the outset it is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the shopping complex was constructed so as to rehabilitate the street vendors and it is pertinent to bring to the notice of the Hon'ble Court that petitioner namely Sh. Balbir Chand, Piar Chand, Shakti Chand, Tilak Rajj and Braham Dass have not been displaced from their present place of occupation in any manner, hence as such the petitioners do not have a right to claim relief in this case. However as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court the district Administration took a pro active step so as to settle the dispute and accommodate the petitioners by allotting them the vacant shops to their liking. 6. That a preliminary meeting was held on dated 22.05.2018 with the petitioner. In the meeting a proposal was put forth to the petitioners seeking relief regarding the allocation of shops so as to arrive at an amicable settlement. It was proposed in the preliminary meeting, they would be accommodated by allotment of shops in running numbers subject to the standard codal formalities, however the petitioner namely Sh. Piar Chand, Sh. Tirath Ram, Sh. Shakti Chand, Sh. Balbir Chand & Sh. Tilak Raj declined the offer, outrightly for the shops on the top floor of the complex. Henceforth another proposition was mooted that the petitioners be accommodated on any floor, provided all the shops would be in contiguous situation. The petitioners were requested to put forth their demands in writing before the committee on 23rd May 2018 befoe 4:00 PM. In the second round of deliberations held under the chairmanship of the undersigned on 23.5.2018, which were video recorded; the petitioners namely Sh. Piar Chand, Sh. Tirath Ram, Sh. Balbir Chand stated orally that they are not willing to accept the offer made to them against the now eighty nine vacant lying shops. Petitoner Sh. Tilak Raj had come forth with a written demand that he is willing to settle the dispute with the authorities if he is allotted two shops o the ground floor, citing reasons regarding his nature of business and the dimensions of the shops. At the conclusion another attempt was made for Sh. Petitoner Sh. Tilak Raj had come forth with a written demand that he is willing to settle the dispute with the authorities if he is allotted two shops o the ground floor, citing reasons regarding his nature of business and the dimensions of the shops. At the conclusion another attempt was made for Sh. Tilak Raj by proposing that a spot be visited by the SDM and EO, MC along with the petitioner so as to better appreciate the future business prospects of the location and to settle the dispute by getting a single shop allotted to himself. However even after the spot-proposal the petitioner Sh. Tilak Raj remained adamant on his request for two shops as the 'fronts' of the shops were not to his liking. Copy of proceedings of meeting of the society dated 23.05.2018 enclosed as R-I for kind perusal of this Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that compliance report on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 may kindly be taken on record in the interest of justice please." 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 10. Whereas it is the case of the petitioners that they were running their business in the mode and manner explained in the petition, over the land where the shopping complex stood constructed by the respondent-Society, but this has been completely denied by the respondents and the stand of the respondents is clear and categoric, especially the stand of respondents No. 2 and 3, that the petitioner were not carrying out business over the place where the shopping complex was constructed and as they were never displaced or dislocated from the place where they were carrying out their business, therefore, their names were rightly not included in the list of beneficiaries and they were not entitled for the allotment of the shops. It is also explained by these respondents that an amount of 85,000/- was paid by the beneficiaries as contribution for the construction of the shops in which they have been rehabilitated after the construction of the shopping complex. It is also explained by these respondents that an amount of 85,000/- was paid by the beneficiaries as contribution for the construction of the shops in which they have been rehabilitated after the construction of the shopping complex. Neither with the petition nor with the rejoinder filed by the petitioners to the replies of respondents No. 2 and 3, any cogent material has been placed on record by the petitioners to demonstrate that they were actually carrying their business over the land where the shopping complex in dispute was constructed by the respondent-Society. As it was the case of the petitioners that they were running their business over the said land, in the considered view of this Court, onus was squarely upon them to have had proved and substantiated this fact. In the absence of any material being placed on record by the petitioners to this effect, the only conclusion which can be drawn by this Court is this that the contention of respondents No. 2 and 3 is correct that the petitioners were not dislocated or displaced on account of construction of the shops, subject matter of this petition. That being the case, this Court finds no infirmity in the factum of the names of the petitioners not being included in the list of beneficiaries because when they were not dislocated or displaced on account of construction of the shops over the land in dispute, but natural, their names were not supposed to be included in the list of beneficiaries. In this view of the matter, in the considered view of this Court, the petitioners being strangers to the issue otherwise have no locus to challenge the mode and manner in which the shops were allotted or as to why an amount of 85,000/- was charged from the beneficiaries for the construction of the shops. In this regard, grievance, if any, could have been raised by those persons who actually were dislocated or displaced on account of construction of the shops over the area from where they were running their business earlier. Incidentally, all the persons against whom allegations stand made in the petition/ rejoinders to the effect that they were the wrong beneficiaries of the arbitrary allotment of the shops, have not been impleaded as parties. 11. Incidentally, all the persons against whom allegations stand made in the petition/ rejoinders to the effect that they were the wrong beneficiaries of the arbitrary allotment of the shops, have not been impleaded as parties. 11. Be that as it may, as this Court otherwise does not finds any merit in the present case, because the petitioners have miserably failed to demonstrate that they were dislocated or displaced on account of construction of the shopping complex in issue, the petition is accordingly dismissed. However, as is evident from the compliance affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, dated 24.05.2018, that an endeavour was made to allot the vacant shops to the petitioners, to which the petitioners did not agree, it is observed that the petitioners may be again be offered vacant shops, if any, in any of the complexes of the Society in issue in Hamirpur town within a period of two weeks from today and if the petitioners express their willingness to accept the allotment of the same, then the shops be allotted to them on the same terms and conditions, as have been allotted to those persons who were displaced on account of constructions of the shopping complex, subject matter of the writ petition. It is clarified that the above observation made by the Court does not, in any way, mean that on merit the Court has found any substance in the petition but this observation is being made by the Court on account of the contents of the compliance affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 mentioned hereinabove. In case, the petitioners did not accept the proposal of respondent No. 2 in terms of above observations within two weeks as from the date of the proposal being communicated to the petitioners, then the respondent-Society shall be at liberty to deal with the vacant shop(s) in such manner as it deems fit. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.