SATYANARAYAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN; EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUNICIPAL BOARD, SURATGARH, DISTRICT SRI GANGANAGAR; CHAIRMAN MUNICIPAL BOARD SURATGARH, DISTRICT SRI GANGANAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Matter comes up on an application (APPLW No.2712/2016) for preponement of date of hearing. For the reasons mentioned in the application (APPLW No.2712/2016), the same is allowed. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up today for final disposal. Petitioner, a resident of Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar has laid this writ petition praying therein undermentioned reliefs:-

(2.) However, according to the petitioner, he did not receive any notice from the second respondent for depositing remaining amount. Later on, the petitioner made endeavour to deposit the remaining three-forth amount by submitting his application dated 21st of August, 2004. After receiving application of the petitioner, Municipal Board noticed from the auction file that requisite thirty days notice has not been given to the petitioner for depositing the remaining three-forth amount. It is also found by the respondent Municipal Board that the petitioner has submitted application after a lapse of ten months i.e. expiry of thirty days from the date of acceptance of his bid. In that situation, the Municipal Board, vide Proposal No.11 dated 26th of February, 2005, took a tentative decision permitting the petitioner to deposit remaining threeforth amount subject to approval of the Director, Local Self Government, respondent No.1. The said decision was taken by the Municipal Board in adherence of Rules of 1974. It is also submitted by the petitioner that later on Municipal Board with requisite details sent the proposal for approval to the Director, Local Bodies. Along with proposal of the petitioner, proposals of seven other persons for different plots were also sent and the Director, Local Bodies assented for the proposal of one Shri Sadhu Ram S/o Shri Ramjilal. As per positive assertion of the petitioner, no decision as such was taken on the proposal pertaining to plot 43 by the Director, Local Bodies.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, reply to the writ petition is submitted wherein certain preliminary objections are also raised. In the preliminary objections, the respondents have mainly emphasized delay on the part of petitioner in not depositing remaining three-forth amount as, according to them, he has shown his willingness after ten months. The respondents have also stated in the reply that despite repeated notices and requests, the petitioner has not deposited the remaining three-forth amount. It is also borne out from the reply of the respondents that so far proposal of the Municipal Board to accept three-forth amount from the petitioner has not been turned down by the Director, Local Bodies and the matter is still under consideration.