RISHABH MISHRA Vs. BHOPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition takes exception to the orders dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure P-1), 29.07.2019 (Annexure P-2), 03.10.2019 (Annexure P-3, P-4 and P-5), passed by respondent No.2/Bhopal Development Authority, whereby the allotment of Lawyers' Chamber Nos. 358, 357, 355, 354 and 353, in favour of petitioner was cancelled and the registration amount was forfeited.

(2.) The Bhopal Development Authority (for brevity 'BDA') published an advertisement inviting offers for allotment of Lawyer's Chambers at Arera Hills, District Court Bhopal, wherein prospective candidates were called upon to apply for allotment of chambers. Petitioner submitted five separate applications for allotment of Chamber Nos. 353, 354, 355, 357 and 358 alongwith the total registration fees of Rs. 10,49,410/- for aforementioned five chambers on 04.11.2012. The BDA vide allotment order dated 13.12.2016, informed the petitioner that he has been allotted five chambers as applied for on the third floor. As per the allotment order, the balance amount was to be deposited by 13.01.2017, under certain terms and conditions. The petitioner, however, did not deposit the balance amount in pursuant to the allotment, within the stipulated period. The BDA vide five separate notices dated 10.06.2019, informed the petitioner to deposit the balance amount with respect to each of allotted chamber within a period of 10 days, else the allotment would be cancelled and the registration fees would be forfeited. On receipt of the notices, the petitioner vide letter dated 06.07.2019 and again on 13.09.2019 requested the BDA to cancel four of his allotments and return the registration fees as he intended to keep only one chamber. The BDA, however, cancelled all the allotments made in favour of the petitioner and forfeited the registration fees vide orders dated 26.07.2019, 29.07.2019 and 03.10.2019. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of cancellation, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition.

(3.) This Court vide order dated 11.12.2019 was pleased to direct the BDA to retain one chamber subject to petitioner's depositing the entire cost of one chamber. However, the order was not complied and as reflected from the order sheet dated 12.10.2020, a plea was raised that the same could not be complied as the details of payments were not made available to the petitioner.