RAKESH KUMAR ARORA Vs. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision of the opposite parties as contained in their letters dated 26.9.1995 and 16.11.1995 as also the cancellation order dated 14.1.1997 (Annexures-8. 10 and 11 respectively). Further a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to provide and deliver possession of shop No. 1. Basement, Janpath Market. Lucknow to the petitioner upon the sale consideration calculated at the rate of Rs. 2.500 per sq. metre instead of Rs. 4.500 per sq. metre, has also been sought for.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that he applied for allotment of a godown-cum-shop No. 24 at Vyavasaylk Kendra (Basement), Janpath Market. Hazratganj, Lucknow constructed by the opposite party No. 1, namely, the Lucknow Development Authority. The said Development Authority, vide letter dated 10.8.1979, asked the petitioner to submit a Bank Draft of Rs. 2,000. The petitioner complied with the letter and submitted on 18.8.1979 a Bank Draft of the requisite amount with the opposite parties. The allotment was to be made on the basis of principle of 'first come, first serve' and since the petitioner was the first to approach the Development Authority, he was entitled for allotment of the shop. The opposite party No. 1 arbitrarily allotted shop No. 24 to one Sri Haseen Kidwal even though his application was received on 3.8.1979, i.e., more than three weeks' later to the petitioner's application. The petitioner approached the opposite parties and offered to have shop No. 34 instead of 24 allotted in his name. The Development Authority was not inclined to accept the offer as a consequence, the petitioner was obliged to file a Writ Petition, bearing No. 4435 of 1986. Rakesh Kumar Arora v. Lucknow Development Authority and others, praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allot shop No. 34 in the basement of Janpath Market. This Court vide its order of June 7, 1986. commanded the opposite parties to allot the said shop No. 34 or any other shop at the basement of the Vyavasayik Kendra, Janpath Market without charging any premium within six weeks from the date of the order. However, the said order was not carried out by the opposite parties. Eventually, the aforesaid writ petition of the petitioner was finally decided by this Court vide its Judgment dated 27.9.1993 whereby the opposite parties were directed to consider the petitioner's case for allotment of a suitable shop in Vyavasayik Kendra, Janpath Market. Hazratganj, Lucknow, in accordance with rules and without charging any premium. It is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the opposite parties Informed the petitioner that shop No. 34 was provisionally allotted to him but since it was under unauthorised occupation, he had to wait till the proceedings under Public Premises Act being finally disposed of. However, the Development Authority regularised the occupation of the unauthorised occupant, Smt. Laxmi Dixit. The petitioner was then left with no option except to request for some other suitable shop and in this context, he moved written letters dated 28.10.1986, 16.12.1986. 8.1.1987 and 21.2.1987. However, after the judgment, the petitioner continued to make approaches before the opposite parties for getting a shop tn the basement or elsewhere. The opposite parties vide letter dated 2.3.1995, informed him that he had been allotted shop No. 1 in the basement of Vyavasayik Kendra. Janpath Market, HazratganJ. Lucknow on the basis of sale consideration like other basement shop-keepers. The petitioner on its own deposited a sum of Rs. 1.30.000 through pay orders with the opposite parties for being credited towards the sale consideration of the said shop but the petitioner was informed vide letter of September 26, 1995 that he had to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,72.600 by 30.11.1995 as the sale consideration of the shop in question besides a sum of Rs. 1.41.100 for general stamps of the sale deed. The petitioner lodged his protest and reiterated his right to have the shop on the basis of the price as prevalent in the year 1986. The opposite parties informed the petitioner vide letter dated 16.11.1995 that the then rate of the plinth area was Rs. 4.500 per sq. metre and he was accordingly required to pay on the same basis. The petitioner came to know that the Development Authority allotted in November, 1995, three different shops to three applicants on a lesser rate than asked from the petitioner. In this way. the opposite parties were treating the petitioner in a discriminatory manner. The opposite parties' decision to charge higher rates from the petitioner was not at all sustainable. All the petitioner's requests and protests failed to yield any favourable result. In the meantime, the opposite parties' cancelled the allotment order vide order dated 14.1.1997 without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing or to show cause. The opposite parties action was illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and against the principles of natural justice. It was In these circumstances that the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) The opposite parties did not file any counter-affidavit despite numerous opportunities having been granted for the purpose. This Court. aide its order of October 7, 1999. allowed as a last opportunity ten days' more time to file counter-affidavit but even this did not deter the opposite parties and no counter-affidavit was filed. However. Ganga Ram, the Section Officer of Development Authority filed a reply to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner dated 28.10.1999 and submitted along with it on 3.11.1999 a letter dated 26.3.1999 of the then Vice-Chairman wherein it was recited that shop No. 1 being in occupation of Estate Department could not be allotted to Rakesh Kumar Arora and in case It fell vacant, it would be sold by way of public auction in which the petitioner could also participate. Sri Ganga Ram asserted in his affidavit that the allotment letter in respect of shop No. 1, Basement. Janpath Market was Issued to the petitioner by mistake. As the said shop was at the time of submitting the affidavit in possession of the Estate Department of U. P. Government, it was not possible to hand over its possession to the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 7,72,600 as sale consideration of the aforesaid shop by 30.11.1995 but instead of depositing the said amount in time, the petitioner filed this writ petition. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Development Authority issued the impugned letter of January 14. 1997 thereby cancelling the allotment of shop No. 1 in favour of the petitioner.