IMTIYAZ AHMAD ZARGAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claiming to be un-employed have filed this writ petition stating therein that they were carrying on their business as Hawkers lawfully at Partap Park, Srinagar adjacent to the Estate Department, thereby earning their livelihood. However, the respondents required the site and directed the petitioners to wind up their business but at the same time, assurance was given to the petitioners that some site for running the business in the shops will be allotted in their favour.

(2.) The petitioners approached the Deputy Chief Minister of the then J&K State through the medium of the application dated 18.09.2005 requesting therein for allotment of some place of land/space at DIC Partap Park, Srinagar to run the photostat shop at that place. The said application was endorsed by the Deputy Chief Minister to the Director State J&K, with the remarks to look into the matter and necessary action on priority. The said application was further endorsed by the Directorate of Estates (Assistant Director Estate Central) to the Deputy Director Estate vide letter dated 11.10.2005 and vide letter dated 17.02.2006 the Directorate of Estates requested the Executive Engineer, Estates Division, Srinagar to furnish a spot sketch plan of the site proposed by the Deputy Director, Estates with the remarks/views and feasibility report for using the site for commercial purpose. The proposed site was reported to be used for car parking by different offices of the Industries Department, Information Department and Estates Department by the residents of press correspondents. It is further contended that the petitioners pursued the case vigorously but the respondents did not finalize the matter. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted representation dated 20.06.2007 requesting for finalizing the allotment of shop site in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners submitted another representation also for doing the needful as nothing was done by the department.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed the instant petition stating therein that the State cannot deny equal protection of law to them as they were robbed of their livelihood by the respondents on a false promise and assurance with regard to allotment of alternate site but the respondents did not do the same despite the fact that then Deputy Chief Minister had directed for allotment of shops to the petitioners. It is further stated that the action on part of the respondents is violative of Article 21 and 39(a) of the Constitution of India because the respondents have deprived the petitioners of their right to carry on their business. On these grounds only, the present petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions to the respondents to provide/allot some site/piece of land to the petitioners at Partap Park adjacent to the Estates Department, where the petitioners were carrying on their business. The petitioners have placed on record the application filed by them with Deputy Chief Minister and consequent inter-se communications between the officers of the respondent department.