JANG BAHADUR RANA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the case was taken up today Shri Bhupinder Gupta appeared for the second respondent and told us that from the record made available to him, which was in his possession, it could not be discovered that preference was given to Shri Dina Nath for allotment of the stall on the ground that he was an unemployed graduate, as is the suggestion contained in para 2 of the supplementary reply sworn by Shri Tarsem Singh, Secretary Municipal Committee, Kullu, on 9th May 1989.

(2.) Our attention has been drawn to "Leasing Out of Stalls Construted by Municipalities in Himachal Pradesh Rules, 1972" framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers under sections 255 and 273 of the H. P Municipal Act, 1968. In these Rules there is no provision in regard to any genera! notice being given to people before proceedings are taken to lease out the stalls constructed by the municipality. Rule 9, which provides for priorities for allotment of stalls to certain categories of persons, does not provide for any preference to "unemployed graduates as such. Besides, frcm the averments made in the various affidavits filed in this case it appears clear that allotment was made in favour of Dina Nath primarily on account of the recommendation made in his favour by the then Honble Minister Incharge of Tourism Department.

(3.) Rule 5 of the above mentioned Rules provides that : "The term of lease in the first instance shall be for one year : provided that the lessee may renew the lease for another year; and so on." This would suggest that the legal efficacy of the lease enures, at any point of time, for a period of one year from the date of its grant or renewal.