Bodhi Prakash Bachkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 946 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                    NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             WA No.64 of 2023

       Bodhi Prakash Bachkar S/o Shri Punaram Bachkar, aged about
       33 years, R/o Village - Joratal, Post and Police Station -
       Kawardha, Tahsil - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (CG)

                                                             ---- Appellant

                                  Versus

  1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Urban
     Administration and Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
     Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

  2. The Collector, Kabirdham, Collectorate - Kawardha, District -
     Kabirdham (CG)

  3. The Municipal Council, Kawardha, through - Chief Municipal
     Officer, Municipal Council, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (CG)

  4. The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Kawardha, District -
     Kabirdham (CG)

                                                        ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr.Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1 and 2: Mr.Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, Judge

Order on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

14.02.2023

Heard Mr.Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant on

I.A.No.01 of 2023, which is an application for condonation of delay of 17

days in preferring the connected appeal against the order dated 07.12.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.5353 of 2022. Also heard

Mr.Vikram Shrama, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for

respondents No.1 and 2.

2. Upon hearing Mr.Dharmesh Shrivastava and Mr.Vikram Sharma,

delay is condoned.

3. I.A.No.01 of 2023 stands disposed of.

4. The writ appeal is also taken up for consideration.

5. Shop No.43 situated at Naveen Bazar, Kawardha was allotted to the

appellant on 07.11.2014 pursuant to an auction conducted. The appellant

was required to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for the shop. Out of the

aforesaid amount, 25% amount was required to be deposited within 7 days

and the balance amount was to be paid within a period of 30 days. The

appellant deposited 25% of the total amount within 7 days. However, the

rest of the amount was not paid.

6. A Public Interest Litigation being WPPIL No.71 of 2017 (Santosh

Namdev v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) was filed, in which the

present appellant was respondent No.22. While disposing of the said

petition by an order dated 08.11.2017, it was observed at paragraphs 2 and

3 as follows:-

"2. Today, the learned counsel for the Petitioner

submits that the official respondents have taken action and

had sealed the shop rooms or have evicted certain

persons by cancelling their licences. The private

respondents have entered appearances. The learned

counsel appearing for the private respondents point out

that arbitrary exercise of power was resorted to under the

cover of pendency of this writ petition and some of the

private respondents are deprived of possession not only of

the shop rooms but also of the goods stored in the said

shop rooms, which have been sealed. Suggestion is made

on behalf of the private respondents that this matter be

kept pending to enable the private respondents to ventilate

their grievances. It is also pointed out that some of the

private respondents have already instituted independent

writ petitions or have sought relief otherwise.

3. This writ petition is yet to be admitted. No interim

order is granted by this Court. In this Public Interest

Litigation, no further relief is called for having regard to the

situation pointed out by the learned counsel for the

Petitioner. It is also not necessary to keep this matter

pending to adjudicate any grievance which the private

respondents have against the purported action taken by

the official respondents either in terms of the statutory

powers or otherwise. All that we need to clarify is that the

institution and pendency of this writ petition would not, by

itself, be decisive either against or in favour of the private

respondents and all grievances of the private respondents

in the litigation which they have initiated or would initiate in

relation to the alleged dispossession or cancellation of

licences will be decided by the competent authority and

this writ petition and this judgment being rendered thereon

will not stand in the way of the parties raising all

contentions in such proceedings in accordance with law.

With such clarification, this writ petition is dismissed."

7. The writ petition was filed on 19.11.2022, amongst others, assailing

the order dated 21.09.2017, by which the shop of the appellant was

cancelled along with forfeiture of amount deposited, as also a report dated

08.11.2019, wherein the steps taken in the matter of allotment of shop was

delineated. Prayer was also made to direct the respondents authorities to

hand over possession of Shop No.43 by enabling the appellant to deposit

balance 3/4th amount.

8. The petitioner had filed a writ petition after more than 5 years of

cancellation of allotment of shop and forfeiture of amount deposited. That

apart, the petitioner had not deposited balance 3/4th amount though it was

required to be deposited within one month from 07.11.2014.

9. Having regard to the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the

considered opinion that no interference with the order of the learned Single

Judge dismissing the writ petition is called for.

10. Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

                       Sd/-                                            Sd/-

              (Arup Kumar Goswami)                          (Narendra Kumar Vyas)
                   Chief Justice                                 Judge
Bablu