RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred by the petitioners in WPMS No. 2676 of 2018 and batch dtd. 4/12/2018. Sri Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-writ petitioners, Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned Brief Holder appearing on behalf of the State Government, and Sri Parikshit Saini, learned Standing Counsel for the Roorkee Municipal Corporation, would agree that it would suffice, for the disposal of this batch of appeals, if the facts in WPMS No. 2319 of 2018 are noted.

(2.) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2319 of 2018 was filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dtd. 1/6/2018 passed by the first respondent communicating the same to the petitioners vide notice dtd. 17/7/2018. The petitioners had earlier filed WPMS No. 2177 of 2018, questioning the order dtd. 1/6/2018 and the notice dtd. 17/7/2018; and, since the said writ petition was restricted only to the first petitioner therein, separate writ petitions were filed seeking the very same relief.

(3.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the appellants-writ petitioners were granted lease of a shop, in Ram Nagar Roorkee in District Haridwar, by the Municipal Board, Roorkee after depositing the premium and the monthly rent payable by the petitioners. It is the appellants-writ petitioner's case that these shops were constructed, and the constructed shops were leased out, after the kiosks established therein were removed; while allotting the shops, no provision was made for a stair-case to approach the roof of most of the shops, nor were the petitioners' permitted to construct a staircase, and use the roof of shops to carry on business; and in some cases, though a staircase existed to reach the first floor, its passage was too narrow, to be even put to use.