UMAR AZIZ SHAH Vs. COMMISSIONER SMC SRINAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim of the Petitioner is that Respondents issued an auction notice in December, 2003 regarding the allotment of various shops in Block ''C'' including the Shop No. 18 in the First Floor at Tatoo Ground, Batamaloo, Srinagar. Further claim of the Petitioner is that he applied for allotment of Shop No. 18 and emerged highest bidder in the auction. The shop has not been allotted to the Petitioner, but Respondents have issued another public notice in respect of same. Petitioner is aggrieved of the said public notice and has filed this petition on the ground that he having quoted the highest rates should have been allotted the aforementioned shop.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted at the bar that Petitioner had submitted an application to the Respondents stating therein that he is prepared to enter into negotiations with them, so as to enable him to quote further higher rates. Learned Counsel also submitted that Petitioner was asked to report to the Office of the Chief Accounts Officer for the purpose of negotiations. Learned Counsel submitted that instead of entering into negotiations with the Petitioner, impugned notice has been issued. Learned Counsel submitted that Petitioner had entertained reasonable expectation that he having quoted the highest rates, shop would be allotted to him. Learned Counsel also submitted that without entering into negotiations with Petitioner, impugned notice could not be issued by the Respondents.

(3.) While distributing public largesse, it is the public interest, which is to be given preference and which has to be of utmost importance. The appropriate mode of allotting public property is mode of public auction, so as to ensure that higher revenue is earned.