Allahabad High Court
M/S Tibrewal Agencies Ltd. & ... vs State Of U.P. & Another on 17 December, 2013
Bench: Arun Tandon, Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 69157 of 2013
Petitioner :- M/S Tibrewal Agencies Ltd. & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bheem Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B. Singh
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
From the record of the present writ petition, it appears that the petitioner was allotted two shops said to have been constructed at basement of Golghar, Commercial Complex Yojna in city Gorakhpur. This allotment was made under a letter dated 1st July, 2006 issued by the Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur.
It is the case of the petitioner that he has deposited the money in terms of the allotment but possession of the shops has not been given inasmuch as the Commissioner/ Chairman of the Development Authority has issued orders for the basement being utilized for parking purposes only and not being used for shopping complex. The order of the Commissioner issued in that regard is not under challenge and even otherwise we are of the considered opinion that the basement was constructed for the purposes of parking, the development authority cannot convert its use for the purposes of shops in the basement. Because of such orders of the Commissioner/ Chairman of the Development Authority, which are not under challenge, possession of the shops allotted of the petitioner has not been delivered. Petitioner has made an application before the Gorakhpur Development Authority on 31st May, 2012 for some alternate shop being allotted to him on the forth floor of the same building.
Since the application of the petitioner has not been considered and instead the Development Authority is proceeding to settle the shops on other floors of the complex by auction, the petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Development Authority to provide alternate shop to the petitioner and not to settle the shop by public auction.
We are of the considered opinion that the writ petition is wholly misconceived. The Development Authority has to settle the shops constructed by public auction and after public participation only. If the allotment of the shops constructed in the basement in favour of the petitioner has been frustrated because of the orders of the Chairman of the Development Authority and which orders is not under challenge before this Court, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to seek refund of the money deposited by him along with the interest. No preferable rights can be claimed in the matter of the allotment of other shops constructed by the Development Authority.
In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss the present writ petition by providing that the petitioner if he so desires, may seek refund of the money deposited by him and in the alternate participate in the open auction for the shops which are now being put to sale by the Development Authority and to seek adjustment of the money already deposited by the petitioner against the bid so made along with interest as may be payable.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 17.12.2013
Priyanka
