RAMANUJ PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant writ petitioner was allotted a shop by the District Administration in Daily Market Complex, Simdega, in the year 1995. The authorities, however, cancelled the allotment of the appellant writ petitioner on the ground that he had sublet the shop, which was impermissible as per the allotment conditions. The cancellation order was passed on 18th September, 2006 and the appellant claims to have had received the same on the next date, i.e. on 19th September, 2006. On allegations of procedural lapses in the manner in which the allotment was cancelled, the appellant approached the learned First Court. By the judgment under appeal, the order of cancellation was confirmed. In this appeal, the appellant has not questioned the legality of the cancellation order. Grievance of the appellant is over the manner in which the shop was re-allotted to the respondent no.5. The allegation of subletting, which forms the basis of cancellation of the appellant's allotment, was to the said respondent only.

(2.) There have been certain developments subsequent to filing of the writ petition, on the basis of which the appellant claims that he ought to have had right of participation in the re-allotment process. Secondly, the appellant's submission is that the re-allotment process in respect of several such shop rooms in the market complex was made in breach of the prevailing norms for allotment of public property. On that count, the appellant has come with a public cause alleging breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We are apprised that during the pendency of this writ petition, the shop was sealed by the authorities and further dealing with the shop was subjected to a restraint order by the learned First Court at the interim stage. Prior to the date the aforesaid interim order was passed on 12th October, 2006, a public advertisement was issued for re-allotment of this shop but the respondent-authorities took a stand before the learned First Court that after receiving the interim order, the process of re-allotment had been stopped.

(3.) There has been earlier litigation in relation to the allegation of subletting of shop in the same complex. In such litigation, which was registered as W.P. (C) No.4859 of 2004, the learned Single Judge of this Court had issued direction to the following effect: