SUSHMA RANI SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly, respondent no. 2 to restore to the petitioner the possession of Shop Nos. 37 and 38 situated in Kedar Nath Market in the town of Gaya. Further prayer made by her is to hand over the articles seized from the aforesaid shops and pay compensation.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, by order dated 10th of June, 1990 the Administrator of Gaya Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation allotted two shops bearing nos. 37 and 38 in Kedar Nath Market to her. Thereafter, separate agreements were entered between the parties on 16th of June, 1993 (Annexure -3) in respect of the two shops and one of the terms of the settlement was that the petitioner shall not settle or give on rent the shops to another person and in case she does so, the Corporation shall have the right to resume possession of the same and settle to any other person. Lateron, by letter dated 6.1.1995, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, inter alia, stating that in breach of the agreement, she is not carrying on any business but has let out the shops to other persons. Accordingly, she was asked to show cause as to why legal action including the decision to cancel the settlement be not taken. Petitioner submitted her reply dated 10.1.1995 and denied the allegation made in the show cause notice that she had let out the shops to another person. She had specifically stated that she was doing her business in the shops. On consideration of the reply of the petitioner, the Administrator, by its order dated 16.1.1995, cancelled the petitioner's allotment and directed that the office of the Corporation shall start functioning in those shops from 21.1.1995. In the said order, it has been stated that allotment was made to her illegally as her father -in -law happened to be the Head Assistant in the Corporation. It has been further observed that the petitioner had illegally given on rent the shops to other persons.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 in which the stand of the respondents Corporation is that after the cancellation of the settlement, possession of the shops were taken by the Corporation in the year 1995 and after three years of the said cancellation of the shops, it was found in the year 1998 that some unknown persons have unauthorisedly taken the possession of the shops and as such, public notice dated 22.7.1998 was issued and the shops were taken in possession on 24.7.1998.