ISHWAR CHANDRA DUTTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the commencement of argument I have asked Counsel for the petitioner whether he intends to oppose these applications. They have been vehemently opposed. Counsel for the applicant drew my attention to the prayers in the Writ Petition which are calculatedly against 96 persons who have already been granted allotment, and are members of the Intervenor. On my further query of how a Writ Petition can be issued against a person who is not a party thereto, Counsel for the petitioner concedes that the applications may be allowed. The applications are allowed. WP (C) No. 17527-28/2004

(2.) After hearing Counsel for the parties I understand the grievance of the petitioners to relate to the failure of allotment of shops on terms identical to those 96 persons, whose eligibility was forwarded by the Screening Committee of the Government with the assistance of the EPDP Association. The criteria for conforming eligibility included the following: (1) Certified copies of Citizenship Certificate. (2) Migration Certificate. (3) Refugee Registration Certificate. (4) Border slips. (5) Certified copies of National Census Register. (6) Certified copy of the first page of the Service Book.

(3.) On verification of these documents, as already mentioned, 96 persons were found eligible for allotment of alternative shop sites at half the prevailing rate, in substitution of the areas in which they were squatting. The verification was carried out from 1984 to 1988. It has been explained that allotment took place in 2004 for the reason that the respondents had to make available to the affected persons an interim site in order to facilitate the squatters to carry on their trade in the interregnum from that site with the ultimate objective of eventually moving to the shops constructed by the respondents. The group of 96 persons have been allotted shops on the ground floor at half the rate applicable to the other group of twelve persons in which the present eight petitioners fall.