Anaro Begum vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
2000 Latest Caselaw 134 Del

ORDER

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Corporation to cancel the allotment of shop No.12. Turkman Gate, New Delhi in favour of respondent No. 4 and to allot and handover possession of the said shop to the petitioner. The petitioner in the writ petition alleged that she was residing with her husband at property No. 3387/VIII, Turkman Gate, New Delhi, which property however, was demolished in 1975-1976. It is stated that the said property was being used both for commercial as well as residential purposes. On account of the aforesaid demolition a demolition slip No. 9437 dated 17.4.1976 was issued in the name of the husband of the petitioner for residential purposes in lieu of which he was allotted quarter No. 368, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi. The petitioner herein made a claim before the respondent that so far the demolition of the property from where commercial activities were carried out by her husband is concerned she is entitled to be allotted with alternative place wherefrom such commercial activities could be carried out. It is alleged that the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner was sent to the Allotment Committee but the respondent No. 4 was considered for allotment of such shop at Turkman Gate instead of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed a fresh complaint as against the aforesaid decision of the Allotment Committee which was again placed before the Allotment committee. The said complaint was investigated but the Allotment Committee upon re-examination could not take any final decision. It is alleged that the respondent instead of obtaining decision from the Allotment committee proceeded to take an independent decision and approved the allotment of the shop in question in favour or respondent No. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order the present writ petition has been preferred in this court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

2. Respondent No. 4 as also respondents No.1 & 2 have filed their counter affidavits which are also on record. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the counsel appearing for the respondents and in the light of their submissions and the documents on record I proceed to dispose of the writ petition.

3. Consequent upon demolition of the residential accommodation at Turkman Gate during emergency the petitioner was provided with alternative residential accommodation. There is no dispute with regard to the same. So far the claim to allotment of a shop at Turkman Gate is concerned the petitioner put up a claim for allotment of commercial accommodation in lieu of the property bearing No.3387/VIII, Turkman Gate which was also allegedly used by the husband of the petitioner for commercial purposes. A rival claim was set up by the respondent No. 4 also. The claim of respondent No. 4 as also of the petitioner was examined by the Allotment Committee constituted for the purpose. The Allotment Committee however, found that the respondent No. 4 was entitled for such allotment of shop and accordingly, he was declared to be so eligible and shop No.12, Turkman Gate was identified subject to the result of the enquiry on the complaint received from the petitioner as against respondent No. 4. Pursuant thereto the respondent investigated the complaint of the petitioner and referred the matter to the Allotment Committee for reconsideration. The Allotment committee re-examined the case but could not take any final decision. It is disclosed from the records placed before me by the respondent that the Competent Authority examined the matter afresh and thereafter decided that the respondent No. 4 is entitled for allotment of shop in question and not the petitioner. It was contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that her husband was using the part of the property bearing No. 3387/VIII, Turkman Gate, New Delhi for commercial purposes. The aforesaid plea was also taken in the complaint filed by her before the respondent. The respondents have placed on record the original files containing the orders of the Competent Authority holding that the respondent No. 4 was eligible for such allotment of shop No. 12 at Turkman Gate.

4. I have perused the said order of the Competent Authority who has observed and recorded that since the Allotment Committee has failed to discharge their obligations and decide the case in hand quickly which is pending for a ling time it was necessary to decide the matter by the Competent Authority itself. The findings recorded by the competent Authority indicate that although documentary evidence was called for from both the parties namely - the petitioner and respondent No. 4 in support of their claim, the petitioner could not adduce any documentary evidence worth the name to substantiate her claim whereas the respondent No. 4 produced various documents to prove the case that he was running a DHALAI SHOP (moulding shop) in the property which was demolished in the year 1976. It was also recorded that the petitioner could produce only one electricity bill which too incidently was in respect of some third person and not in favour of the husband of the petitioner. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case the competent Authority decided that the decision taken by the Allotment committee earlier to allot the shop in question in favour of respondent No. 4 was valid and there was no necessity to alter the same. The Competent Authority has considered all the relevant aspects and has come to a reasoned conclusion as to why the earlier decision of the Allotment committee to allot the shop in question in favour of respondent No. 4 should not be altered. The said order contains strong and cogent reasons and no error could be found in the decision making process of the respondent. The Allotment committee had earlier considered the rivalclaims of both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 and upon such consideration decided that the respondent No. 4 is entitled to be allotted with a shop at Nand Nagri which was subsequently changed to Turkman Gate. The matter was again re-examined on the complaint of the petitioner on the basis of which the matter was again looked into by the competent Authority and by a well reasoned order decided in favour of respondent No. 4 and against the petitioner. When the concerned authorities were satisfied on the basis of the documents produced by respondent No. 4 that he had better claim to be allotted with a shop than the petitioner no interference is called for in respect of such a decision particularly when this court cannot sit as an appellate Court on the decision of the Competent Authority and reappreciate the evidence placed before the authorities.

5. The Allotment Committee on the earlier occasion as also the Competent Authority subsequently has come to a conclusive finding that the husband of the petitioner was not carrying on any commercial activities in the premises No. 3387/VIII, Turkman Gate, New Delhi and therefore, he was not entitled to claim for allotment of a shop. The said findings are conclusions of fact arrived at by the Competent Authority and this court sitting on the writ side should not and cannot interfere with such findings of fact.

6. In the result, this petition has no merit and is dismissed accordingly. But without any costs.