MD RAFIQUE AHMAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder letter dated 20.01.2017 has been sought to be quashed by which the claim of the petitioner for allotment of shop by way of rehabilitation as per the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6075 of 2003 has been shown to be not permissible.

(2.) The brief fact of the case of the petitioner as per the pleading is that a shop is said to have been allotted in favour of the petitioner on the monthly rent of Rs.50/- sometime in the year 1991 and since then the petitioner is in occupation of the said shop. The petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing writ petition W.P.(C) No. 6075 of 2003 against the demolition of the shops and a coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 13.11.2006 has passed an order to consider the desirability of rehabilitating the petitioner at some other place on the fresh terms and conditions fixed by him. In pursuance thereof, decision has been taken by directing the petitioner to vacate the premises with a further direction to make payment of Rs.3,34,140.00 to be paid within 15 days against which the present writ petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that since there is an order for allotment of the shop and in furtherance thereof this Court has also directed to consider the desirability of rehabilitation, but the consideration cannot be said to be in right perspective since the petitioner has been asked to vacate the premises with a direction to make payment of the amount to which the petitioner is liable to make payment by way of monthly rental of the said premises and therefore, the action of the authorities is nothing but an arbitrary exercise to evict the petitioner from the premises which is nothing but to deprive him from the right to livelihood.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the quantum of the amount as has been casted as a liability upon the petitioner is also in dispute since before assessing the said amount the petitioner has not been heard.