SUKHVEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition are, that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Rawali Mahdood, District Haridwar and an umemployed person. He has his own 0.9630 Hectare, Bhumidhari land, situated in khasra no.462, which is about 100 meter away from main road. In the year 2013, he applied for issuance of license to hold the Hat Bazar (Paith) in his own land. On the application of the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Haridwar called report from police and local administration and receiving the report, forwarded the application to respondent no.3 Appar Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Haridwar. After completion of all the formalities, the respondent no.3 vide its order dated 7.10.2013 awarded the license to petitioner to hold the Hat Bazar (Paith) in his own land, situated in Village Rawali Mahdoon. The respondent no.3 while issuing license to petitioner, directed him to make arrangement of light, parking, toilet, drainage etc. from his own pocket, whereafter the petitioner constructed boundary wall in the aforesaid land and also made available the proper lighting and parking arrangements. Since 2013, the petitioner was running weekly Hat Bazar in his land with the approval of respondent no.3; but in the meantime, a complaint was made to District Magistrate, Haridwar by some persons, to cancel the license of Paith Bazar issued to the petitioner. On the said complaint, an enquiry was conducted by Naib Tehsildar, Jwalapur, Haridwar, who prepared a detailed report dated 11.11.2013 and submitted the same before S.D.M., Haridwar through Tehsildar, Haridwar. On the report, Tehsildar also sent his report to SDM, Haridwar mentioning therein that "it will not be proper to cancel the Paith license till 31.3.2014". Thereafter, one Smt. Babli Devi, the then Gram Pradhan also sent a complaint against the petitioner to C.D.O. Again enquiry was conducted and the complaint was disposed of by the order of respondent no.3 dated 19.09.2015. Thereafter, on 20.2.2016, for the year 2016, the petitioner alongwith the draft of requisite fee, applied for renewal of his license for holding the weekly Hat Bazar; but, the respondent no.3, by its letter dated 31.3.2016, refused to renew the license of petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was running the Hat Bazar in his own land from last three years and has invested money to develop the amenities like lighting, parking, drainage, etc. in the said place. He contends that the impugned order has been passed against the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was provided to him before passing of the same. Learned counsel further contends that the respondent no.3 has no power to cancel the license or to decline the renewal of license.