LAWS(CHH)-2018-2-3

JAGDISH SHARAF Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On February 06, 2018
Jagdish Sharaf Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ appeal, the challenge levied is to order dated 25. 10. 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition(C) No. 3430/2006 whereby and whereunder he dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

(2.) This is admitted by the respondents that the disputed shop No. 6 situated near the Bhalerao Stadium, Janjgir had been alloted to the appellant by open auction; he had deposited the full amount regarding the auction of the disputed shop; possession of the disputed shop had been given to him; the Collector, District Antyavasayi Sahakari Vikas Samiti Maryadit, District Janjgir-Champa cancelled the allotment of the disputed shop on 27. 10. 2005 vide Annexure P-3 (Annexure R-2/3); the appellant preferred the writ petition bearing No. 6096/2005 wherein the learned Single Judge on 09. 1 2005 vide Annexure P-4 quashed the order Annexure P-3 (Annexure R-2/3) and observed that, that order shall not come in the way of the Collector from taking appropriate action against the appellant after giving him opportunity of hearing; the District Collector issued show cause notice to the appellant on 10. 03. 2006 vide Annexure P-7 (Annexure R-2/4); he submitted his reply on 17. 03. 2006 vide Annexure P-8; and on 1 06. 2006 again the allotment of the disputed shop was cancelled by respondent No. 3 vide Annexure P-9.

(3.) In brief, the appellant's case is that out of 10 shops, 3 shops were auctioned for the persons of general category. Guidelines were framed vide Annexure P-1. On 1 05. 1996 vide Annexure P-2 the proposal was sent to C. M. O. Champa for execution of the registry. By Annexure P-7 (Annexure R2/4) respondent No. 3 alleged that he has not paid the rent since last 10 years, he has also sublet the disputed shop to one Ratan Bhavnani on rent. He has also done permanent modification in the disputed shop without obtaining the permission from the competent authority, though these allegations were not true. There was no condition regarding monthly rent.