MANOHAR JETHANI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 29/10/2015 in Writ Petition (C) 1920/2015 wherein the Writ Petitioner filed by the Petitioner was dismissed in limine.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Petitioner had earlier filed another Writ Petition numbered as Writ Petition (C) No. 3334 of 2009 which was heard and decided along with many other Writ Petitions where the main prayer of the Writ Petitioner was that a Writ of Mandamus be issued against the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai directing it to allot residential/commercial plots to them on the basis of first come first served basis. The allegation of the Petitioner was that previously the area of Durg and Bhilai were being administered by the Special Area Development Authority (SADA) which had floated a scheme for allotment of plot on first come first served basis. The Petitioner in the case had also applied for the plots and it is not in dispute that thereafter the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai was established for looking after the area falling within the jurisdiction of the erstwhile SADA. As per the rules and regulations of the Corporation the property of the Corporation can only be transferred on the basis of auction/tender to the highest bidder. The Petitioner's case was that since they had applied to SADA an exception be made in this regard and he should be given allotment on preferential basis. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide detailed judgment rejected the Petition on 28/2/2012. Aggrieved with the said order the Petitioner filed Writ Appeal No 279 of 2012. This appeal was disposed along with other appeals by a common judgment on 2/5/2012. The Appellate Division Bench did not interfere with the finding given by the learned Single Judge but had made certain observations in Para 16 of the Judgment which read as follows:

(3.) We have now been informed that in fact the State had lifted the ban on the Scheme even prior to the passing of judgment and thereafter whether the ban has been re-imposed or not has not been brought to the notice of this Court by any party.