DEVI PRASADS Vs. ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Order IX. Rule 13, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the operation of the order dated 15th October, 1997, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18274 of 1996. We have heard Shri H.S. Nigam, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties--original petitioners and Shri J. N. Sharma, for the Allahabad Development Authority,

(2.) There is a Commercial Complex near Chowk Ghantaghar, Allahabad, known as Jawahar Lal Complex, constructed by the respondent Allahabad Development Authority. In the said Complex, shops were allotted on the ground floor, first floor and the second floor. Present applicants, twenty-two in number, have been allotted shops on the ground floor of the said Complex. On the ground floor of the said Complex as per scheme originally announced, the grills were affixed in the shops of the applicants allotted on the ground floor. With the permission of the Allahabad Development Authority, the applicants removed the iron grills and replaced them by shutters, opening on the roadside. The original petitioners had grievance against the said act of the present applicants as by the said act, the parking facility for the customers has been eliminated affecting the business of the petitioners-allottees of the shops on the first and second floors of the Complex. Certain other facilities are also not being provided by the Allahabad Development Authority and so the allottees of the first floor filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which were registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 18274 of 1996, 38022 of 1996. 23722 of 1997, 37527 of 1996, 13342 of 1997 and 12413 of 1993 and after hearing the parties, by the impugned order this Court gave certain directions. By the said order, the permission granted to the present applicants to replace grills by shutter and show case was cancelled, and the applicants were directed to close the shutters and show case within specified period. The present applicants have grievance against the said direction and consequently, have moved the present petition.

(3.) The first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants is that the impugned direction is prejudicial to the interest of the present applicants, the constructions raised by them have to be demolished, as per orders of this Court, they ought to have been impleaded as parties in the writ petition and without impleading them, the impugned order should not have been passed. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma and others v. State of U. P. and others. AIR 1985 SC 167. About this contention of the learned counsel for the applicants, it may be pointed out that in the writ petition the acts of the Allahabad Development Authority were challenged, the permission/licence granted to the present applicants was for a period of 1-1/2 years only, granted in the year, 1989, which had expired. The present applicants were not necessary party in the writ petition. However, the present applicants have been heard now and as such, their grievance has been alleviated.