MUNSHI RAM Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MAHENDERGARH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of resolution No. 11 dated 24.10.2000 (Annexure P9) passed by respondent No. 3 -Municipal Committee, Mahendergarh, with a further direction to the respondents to allot and to give possession of shop No. 2/44 to the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that in the year 1990, respondent No. 3 -Municipal Committee, Mahendergarh had earmarked 44 sites for construction of small shops (9" x 12"), which were to be allotted to general public on rent basis. These shops were required to be constructed by respondent No. 3 from the money to be taken in advance from the lessee/tenants. Every allottee of the shops was required to pay Rs. 40,000/ - in advance, as security of the rent. The monthly rent of these shop was fixed at Rs. 350/ -, out of which, half of the rent was to be paid monthly and the remaining half was to be adjusted from the advance payment. Every allottee was also required to deposit Rs. 3,000/ - as initial security and Rs. 40,000/ - was to be deposited after construction of the shops by the Municipal Committee. The petitioner was allotted site of shop No. 2/44. He paid Rs. 3,000/ - on 22.5.1990, as initial security. Respondent No. 3 completed the construction of the shops in the year 1997 and thereafter, the petitioner deposited Rs. 40,000/ - in cash on 9.4.1997. After that, the shop in question was to be allotted to the petitioner, but respondent No. 5 objected to the allotment of the said shop on the ground that the petitioner had agreed to sell his right to him and therefore, as per agreement dated 31.5.1991, the shop in question was to be allotted to him i.e. respondent No. 5 and not to the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner submitted representation dated 25.3.2000 (Annexure P5) regarding non -delivery of the possession to the Sub Divisional Officer -cum -Administrator, Municipal Committee followed by another representation to the Deputy Commissioner, but no action was taken on the representations and possession of the shop in question was not delivered to him. Meanwhile, in the month of April, 2000, the elections of the Municipal Committee took place and mother of respondent No. 5 namely Smt. Shakuntla Devi, respondent No. 4, was elected as President of the Municipal Committee, who allegedly started manipulating the records of the Municipal Committee. On 24.10.2000, the respondent Municipal Committee stated to have passed a resolution in connivance with respondents No. 4 and 5, whereby it has been decided that the shop No. 2/44 may be transferred in favour of respondent No. 5 and possession of the same be given to him, as the petitioner had no objection in transfer of the said shop. On coming to know about the said resolution, the petitioner applied for certified copy of said resolution, vide application dated 6.12.2000 (Annexure P7), but as all the employees of the Municipal Committee were under the influence of respondent No. 4, being President. Therefore, the certified copy of said resolution was not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for copy of resolution before respondent No. 2 i.e. SDM -cum -Administrator, Municipal Committee, Mahendergarh, whereupon copy of the resolution dated 24.12.2000 (Annexure P9) was supplied to the petitioner, but copy of the transfer order dated 15.11.2000 was still not supplied to the petitioner. Through the contents of the resolution, the petitioner came to know that he had allegedly given 'no objection' for transfer of the shop in question in the name of respondent No. 5. The petitioner disputed the contents of the resolution (Annexure P9) and applied for certified copies of the documents namely (i) No Objection Certificate allegedly given by the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 5, (ii) Copy of order of transfer of the shop in question from petitioner to respondent No. 5 and (iii) copy of receipt of security regarding the shop in question, vide application dated 12.2.2001 (Annexure P10), so as to challenge the illegal and malafide action of the respondent -Municipal Committee. On 13.2.2001, respondent No. 2 directed the respondent No. 3 to supply certified copies of the same. Thus, the petitioner has pleaded that he has not given any 'No Objection Certificate' for transfer of the shop in question to the respondent -Municipal Committee and thus, the petitioner is legally entitled to get the possession of the shop in question which was allotted to him and is still lying vacant and actual possession of the same was not given to respondent No. 5 and the respondent No. 5 is adamant to further transfer the said shop to another person by charging the premium.