ce ^ erc D; IN THE HIGHCOURt OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.(C) No. '^~€)S^ l 2008 PETITIONER /s ^ C^..^-sl.'' j ^yi/ ^/^. ^ Jb>^^' *<<''os'^' r\' ./?^ RESPONDENTS 1 Pradeep Yadav S/o Shri B. Yadav aged about 30 years R/o Q. No. 17 Street 24 Sector 4 Bhilai Durg(CG). ^2 Kriti Lal S/o Fagua aged about 48 years R/o Chhattisgarh Sabji Mandi Ruabandha Sector Bhilai Durg (CG). ^3 Santosh yadav S/Q Late shri Lal Ji Yadav aged about 30 years R/o Chhattisgarh Sabji Mandi Ruabandha Sector Bhilai Durg (CG). ^4 Baban Yadav S/o Hardev Yadav aged about 42 years R/o Ghhattisgarh Sabji Mandi Ruabandha Sector Bhilai Durg (CG). VERSUS ^1 ^ Steel Authority of India, Through—TheManaging Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai Distt. Durg (C.G.) The Manager, Town Services Department, Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai Distt. - Durg (C.G.) The Sr. Estate Manager (Shops) Estate Department - shops section, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt.-Durg (C.G.) l;lt WRIT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 2260F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUSCERTIORARIETC. • -.-^:j £.•• HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J W.P.rci N0.7095/2008 PetitLoners Respondents Pradeep Yadav and Othere Versus Steel Authority of India'and Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Present - ihri Vipin Tnyari, counsel for the petitionere. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, counsel for respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passedon07<1.2011) Heard. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioners praying for issuance of a direction to the respondente to consider their caseforallotment of shops at Chhattisgarh Sabji Mandi, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai. 3. Facts necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in the petition are that the petitioners, who ctaimed to be running vegetable shops at Chhattisgarh Sabji Mandi, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai were claiming allotment of shops by submitUng that at the time whenthe respondent authorities have undertaken survey to find out encroachment and allot shop to those, who were running their v^etable business.the pet'rtioners were also running their business by selling vegetables. The respondent authorities had undertaken a policy decision toEdlot shops by removing encroachment. Though, initially a survey was made and name ofthe petiUonere were mentioned at S.No.26-A/99,103 and 106 ofttie-tist (Annexure P-1) prepared by the respondents, but the shops have not been allotted to the petitioners though number of other persons, whose name were •ffi} -<3 / 2- — included in the survey list, have been allotted shops. The President of the Society j.e. Chhattisgarh Sabji Mandi, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai requested for allotment of shops, even then, no allotment letter has been issued to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondent authority having taken a policy decision to allot shops to all the v^etable sellers who were selling v^etabtes by encroaching upon the land of the respondents, the petitioner was also entiUed for allotment of shop by the respondente. Leamed counsel for Uie petitioner referred to certain list (Annexure P-1) while contending that the list which was prepared by respondent authorities contained the name of the petitioners also. He submits that in letter dated 01-07-2008 (Annexure P-4) disclosing information, it has been stated that in the inspection carried out by the Surveyor on 28-08-1W9, name of the petitioners wrere mentioned, therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners were entitled for altotment of shops and non- aflotment of shops to the petitioners were arbitrary as the respondent authority is under obligation to act in a just and fair manner free from arbitrariness in vtew of the provisions contained in ArUcle 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. On the other hand, submission of learned counset for the respondents is that the officers of the respondent authority carried out survey on 01 -12-1998 and 15-02-19% and in that list, the names ofthe petitioners were not included which shows that the petitioners were not occupying the place of shop nor running their business of vegetables. He submits that in this w'ew ofthe matter, the petitioners were not allotted anyshops. Other submission of learnedcounsel for the respondents is that even if subsequentty the names of the petitioners were included but in the first two lists, name of the petitioners were not there. Next submission of learned counsel (or the respondents is that the question whether ^ h-- ^•^ -Ijy ^.^ 'ai,;fl?ai'3>. 'yss^ •^y 3. l'k-i ^ the petitioners were actually running their business and setling vegetables, itsetf is a seriously disputed quesUon of fact which cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Last submissionof learned counsel for the respondents is Uiat this petition itself suffers from undue delay and laches as the petitionere have approached this Court after about 8 years. He submits that the allotment list were prepared in the year 1998-1999 and on that basis altotments were made in the year 2000-2(X)1 whereas this petition has been fited in the year 2008 and is Uierefore liable to be dismissed on that count atone. 6. In so far as delay is concemed, there is no thumb rule that the petition filed with delay cannot be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If there is a reasonable exptanation for the detay caused in filing the petition, the petition coutd be entertained. What I find from the pleadings of the parties is that the list was prepared in the year1998-1^».Respondent submitted that Uie allotment was made in the year 2000-2001. However, l find from Annexure R-J-1 that the respondent authorities have been making altotments atteast till the year 2007. Annexure P-3 is a lettar of Chhattisgarh Sabji Mandi, Ruabandha Swtor, Bhilai, dated 01-05-2001, inwhich, it has been stated that the allotments are being made to the members and still several altotment have not been made. It is thus ctear that the respondents have been making allotment of shops till 2007. Thereafter, the petitioners made certain applications to seek information under Right to Information and then, this petition has been filed. Therefore, under these circumstances, 1 am not inclined to dismiss the petition only on the ground of delay. 7. The fespondents have denied allotment of plot to the petitioners • particularly on the ground that spot survey made on two occasions i.e. on 01-12- 1998 and 15^)2-1999, names of the petitioners were not included in the survey list, This would therefore show that upon initial surveys made, the petitioners —il i.. tIW""-". •:.•"."»'""( IWUMWWWSHWfMif^ iSiKi-: Jtes.' /"'A:~^* ^ss A- were notfound to be occupant or running business ofselling vegetables. True it is that subsequently another tist was prepared on 28-08-1999 and the names of the petitioners appeared in tfiis tist, Uie fact remains that ttie petitioners were not found as occupant on twosurveys made before that. The only conclusion which could be drawn on the basis of three surveys is that on (y-02-1998 and 15-02- 1999, the petitioners were neither running their business nor occupying the place of shop but later on 28-08-1^9, the petitioners may have occupied the place so as to find place in thelist. Ifthat be so, it cannot be said that the respondents '~s-'^ ihave committed any arbitrariness or adopted pick and choose policy in allotment of shops. It is open for the respondent authority to atlot the shops pureuant to advertisement. An attempt was made by the respondent authoritjes to remove encroachment and the encroacherswere offered shops by way of aHotment. If in that exercise and in the initial survey, the petitioners were not found occupying the place andtheir names were not included, they cannot claim an indefeasibte right for allotment of shop. The claim of the petitionere are that they were occupying the place and ninnmg Uieir business even on the date.when initiat surveys made, fliis itself is a disputed question of fact and this Court cannot go '^.into the disputed question of fact whether the petitioners were running their business on 01-12-1998 and 15-02-19% or not. It is not the case of the petitioners nor is there any material to come to the conclusion that those, who were subsequently added in the list on 28-08-1 %9,were atso considered for allotment and allotted shops also. Therefore, no case for discriminatory action is madeout. 8. In the result, 1 do not find any merit in this petition which isaccordingly dismissed. w»,,^"»->"sbr'<""" Judge _