Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ved Prakash Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 May, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 23rd OF MAY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 12006 of 2022
Between:-
1. VED PRAKASH GUPTA S/O BIHARI LAL GUPTA ,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SHOPKEEPER R/O PRATHIBHA BHAWAN,
BEHIND OLD EMPLOYMENT OFFICE
CHATTARPUR. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA S/O SHRI JAMUNA
PRASAD GUPTA , AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPER, SHOP NO. 12
DISTRICT HOSPITAL COMPOUND
(CHATRASHAL SQUARE) CHHATARPUR
MADHYA PRADESH R/O MAHARASHTRA MARG
BENIGANJ MOHALLA CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. NASEER AHMED S/O HOSHIYAR AHMED , AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPER,
SHOP NO. 11 DISTRICT HOSPITAL COMPOUND
(CHATRASHAL SQUARE) CHHATARPUR
MADHYA PRADESH R/O RANI KI BAGIYA
CHHATARPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. BRIJKISHORE KHARE (DEAD) THROUGH HIS
LR PANKAJ KHARE S/O BRIJKISHORE KHARE ,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SHOPKEEPER, SHOP NO. 10 DISTRICT HOSPITAL
COMPOUND (CHATRASHAL SQUARE)
CHHATARPUR MADHYA PRADESH R/O
CHOUBEY COLONY CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. KAMLA DEVI GUPTA W/O LATE RAM SEWAK
GUPTA , AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SHOPKEEPER, SHOP NO. 9 DISTRICT HOSPITAL
COMPOUND (CHATRASHAL SQUARE)
CHHATARPUR MADHYA PRADESH R/O BEHIND
MODEL BASIC SCHOOL BENIGANJ
Signature Not Verified
SAN
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
6. KISHORE KUMAR SAHU S/O PANNA LAL SAHU ,
Date: 2022.05.26 17:18:16 IST
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
2
SHOPKEEPER, SHOP NO. 8 DISTRICT HOSPITAL
COMPOUND (CHATRASHAL SQUARE)
CHHATARPUR MADHYA PRADESH R/O DERI
TIGADDA SAGAR ROAD CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. MOHD. RAFIQ S/O MOHD. IDDU , AGED ABOUT
48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPER, SHOP
NO. 6 DISTRICT HOSPITAL COMPOUND
(CHATRASHAL SQUARE) CHHATARPUR
MADHYA PRADESH R/O BADI KUNJREHTI
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. RAM SWAROOP TAMRAKAR S/O SHRI RAM
KRISHNA TAMRAKAR , AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPER, SHOP NO. 4
DISTRICT HOSPITAL COMPOUND
(CHATRASHAL SQUARE) CHHATARPUR
MADHYA PRADESH R/O HOUSE NO. 186
PEPTECH CITY COLONY DERI ROAD
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. RAM NARAYAN TAMRAKAR S/O R.K.
TAMRAKAR , AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPER, SHOP NO. 3
DISTRICT HOSPITAL COMPOUND
(CHATRASHAL SQUARE) CHHATARPUR
MADHYA PRADESH R/O TAMRAI MOHALLA
WARD NO. 9 CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. RAKESH KUMAR SHRIVAS S/O AYODHYA
PRASAD SHRIVAS , AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPER, SHOP NO. 2
DISTRICT HOSPITAL COMPOUND
(CHATRASHAL SQUARE) CHHATARPUR
MADHYA PRADESH RO BEHIND MANIHARI
MASZID KADAKIBARIYA CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIPIN YADAV, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Signature Not Verified
SAN VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MP) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.05.26 17:18:16 IST
2. COLLECTOR / PRESIDENT RED CROSS SOCIETY
3
C H H A T A R P U R CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER /
SECRETARY INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY
C H H A T A R P U R CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 3 BY SMT. GULAB KALI PATEL,
ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated
17.05.2022 (Annexure P/4) issued by the respondent No.3, whereby, allotment
orders issued in favour of the petitioners by the Town Improvement Trust,
Chhattarpur have been declared to be void after lapse of 28 years and the
petitioners have been directed to vacate the shop in question within a period of
seven days without giving any opportunity of hearing and issuance of any show
cause notice.
It is submitted that in pursuance to the advertisement which has been
issued by the office Town Improvement Trust, Chhattarpur in the year 1994,
the petitioners applied for allotment of the shops and they have been allotted the
shop in question. The petitioners are in continuance possessions of the shop in
question since the date of allotment and are regularly paying rent and charges as
mentioned in the agreement NIT. The rent has been increased from time to time
and the petitioners are regularly depositing the same, which has also been
accepted by the authorities. All of a sudden, notices dated 17.05.2022 have
Signature Not Verified
SAN been issued to the petitioners directing them to vacate the shop in question as
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.05.26 17:18:16 IST
the allotment of the petitioners has been declared to be void. It is argued that in
terms of the agreement, the rent was required to be increased after a lapse of
three years, the petitioners are complying with all the terms and conditions of
the agreement NIT and are regularly depositing the increased rent, which has
been duly accepted by the authorities. Neither any notice nor any opportunity of
hearing prior to passing of the impugned orders have been granted to them.
Thus, the impugned orders which are having civil consequence, atleast principle
of natural justice is required to be followed by the authorities, as has been held
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. CIT, reported in
2007(2) SCC 181 and in the case of M/s Ashoka Smokeless Coal India
Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2007(2)
SCC 640.
The petitioners have filed the certain documents alongwith with the
petition to demonstrate that the rent in question has regularly been deposited,
which has been duly accepted by the authorities, meaning thereby, all conditions
of the agreement NIT have been fulfilled by the petitioners, which are duly
appreciated and acknowledged by the authorities. Thus, the authorities are
having no right to declare the allotment of the petitioners to be void, rather they
were successful bidders and have been allotted the shop in question. Therefore,
prior to passing of any order, which is having civil consequences, atleast, an
opportunity of hearing should be provided to the petitioners. They have prayed
for quashment of the impugned orders by filing the present petition.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 has
supported the impugned order and has stated that initial allotment of the shop in
question in favour of the petitioners was issued in the year 1994 and was for a
Signature Not Verified
SAN
period of three years with certain conditions. One of the condition was to renew
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
the agreement after completion of every three years alongwith increased rent and
Date: 2022.05.26 17:18:16 IST
the agreement should have been registered. The petitioners could not
demonstrate that as to when they have entered into with an agreement with the
authorities and when the agreement was renewed and registered. In absence of
fulfillment of any initial condition with respect to entering into an agreement with
the authorities, no right accrues in favour of the petitioners to hold the shop in
question. It is argued that the respondents are excepting higher rent of the shop
in question and, therefore, they are willing to re-auction the rent and the
petitioners will always be at liberty to participate in the fresh proceedings. As far
as, the allotment of the petitioners is concerned, as the terms and conditions
were not fulfilled by the petitioners themselves, therefore, the allotment was
declared to be void and they are directed to vacate the shop in question. Thus
the impugned orders are just and proper and does not call for any interference
of this Court in the present petition. She has prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record.
From a perusal of the record, it is seen that initial allotment of shop in
question to the petitioners was way back in the year 1994 and the allotment
letter, Annexure P/1 were having certain conditions. One of the condition being
Clause No.5 of initial allotment letter reads as under:
rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds mijkar nqdku dk iqu% vuqca/k jftLVMZ djkuk gksxk
ftldk O;; vkcafVrh }kjk ogu fd;k tk;sxkA rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds i'pkr fdjk;s
esa 10 izfr'kr dh o`+f+) djus dk vf/kdkj U;kl ds ikl lqjf{kr jgsxkA
Signature Not Verified
SAN
The petitioners have not fulfilled the aforesaid condition. They have not
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.05.26 17:18:16 IST
got a new agreement entered into nor got it registered.
Clause No.7 of the initial agreement reads as under:
nqdku dk vuqca/k jftLVMZ djkuk vfuok;Z gksxk ftldk laiw.kZ O;; vkcafVrh }kjk
ogu djuk gksxkA nqdku dk vuqca/k eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ftyk fpfdRlky; Nrjiqj ,oa
vkcafVrh ds e/; gksxkA
As the petitioners themselves have not fulfilled the conditions mentioned
in the allotment letter i.e. clause Nos. 5 & 7, which appear to be important
conditions, merely deposition of the rent, does not create any right in favour of
the petitioners. As the authorities are willing to auction to shop in question again
expecting a higher rent of the shop in question, the petitioners are having an
opportunity to participate in the fresh proceedings. The petitioners could not
demonstrate that any agreement entered into between them and the
respondents/authorities with respect to the shop in question. In absence of any
agreement, no benefit can be extended to the petitioners. The case law which
has been relied upon by the petitioners are virtually on different facts and
circumstances, therefore, the analogy will not be made applicable in the case of
the petitioners. The petitioners will not get any help from the judgments which
they have relied upon. In such circumstances, no case for interference is made
out. The orders impugned have rightly been passed and does not call for any
interference in the present petition.
The petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
V. JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.05.26 17:18:16 IST
