HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK. CJ. WRIT PETITION NO. 996 of 2005. PETITIONERS 1. Om Prakash Dutta, Age 36 yrs. S/o. Lae N.N, Dutta, Rio. Near Post Office, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G.) 2. Rajesh Nagwani Age 33 yrs. S/o. Late Panjumal Nagwani Rio. Mahaipara Road, Baikunthpur distt, Koria (C.G) 3. Sanjay Namdeo Age 36 yrs. S/o. Late S.L. Namdeo R/o. Bazarpara. Baikunthpur Distt. Koria (CG). am. W. .w..“ ...,, , 4. Majhar Alam Age 37 years S/o. Shri Makbool Alam R/o. Baisagarpara, Ward No. 9 Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G) 5. \fljay Shankar (Nai) Age 38 years Slo. Late Drurpat Nai, Rio. Mandalpara, Village- Majgavria, P.O. Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G) 6. Vijay Kumar @ Santosh Trivedi. Age 35 yrs 8/0. Late J.N. Trivedi R/o. Hetram Colony. Schoolpara, Ward No. 4, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary. Urban Development Department Office : D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G) 2. Director, Directerate of Urban Development, Nagariya Niyojan Avam Vikas C.G. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Nagar Panchayaf Baikunthpur Through : Chief Municipar orncer, Baikunthibistt. Koria (C.G) 4. President, Nagar Panchayat, Baikunthpur Distt. Koria (C.G) 5. Cdlector, Koria Distt Koria, Chhattisgarh. Shri Anant Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Utkarsha Verma, learned Dy. G.A., for the State of Chhattisgarh. Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. Present : ORAL ORDE (Passed on 22" December, 2005) g /€ The case of the petitiner in brief is follows: The petitioners are smai businessmen who are running their business in mall Gumties. Theia etc. near the bus stand Baikunthpur. district Koria for the last fifteen years. They have no other source of liveliod. hen the matter stood thus, the third respondent, Nagar Panchayat Bainthpur has constructed 36 shops f which 6 shops were reserved fr the petitioners and rest of the shops were required to be auctioned. Although to the above effect is the resolution of the third respondent, the third respondent, Nagar Panchayat and its President are attempting to auotion of 36 shops without reserving 6 shops for the petitioners. With the above allegation. the petitioners have sought intervention of this Court. (2) On service of notice, on behalf of respondents 1 , 2 and 5 a reply is tiled. in para 2 of the reply it is stated thus: However. it wouid be pertinent to point out here that the petitioners who are 6 in number were running and carrying on various business like cycle repairing, fruit & juice shops, Barber Saloon etc in Gumtis which were just in front of the constructed shopping complex. Therefore the major bottle- neck in giving the shops of the shopping complex to suitable persons was the existence of these Gumtis which was bang in front of the constructed shopping complex and therefore the already constructed shopping complex could not start g and neither could the persons allotted sheps in the shopping complex have been able to start their shops without removal of the Gumtis run by the petitioners. To substantiate the above the answering respondents are annexing copy of map showing the actual position. marked and enclosed as Annexure R-1l1 for perusal. it is also submitted that after the construction of the shopping complex was complete initially it was proposed to auction 29 shops keeping in o as i s ho W ku o o -3» abeyance the {emaining 7 shops out of which 6 shops were to be allotted to the petitioners herein at cost price basis and one more shop was also proposed for being given to one another person namely Tekchand Nagwani, in addition to the petitioners who too was running a Gumti just in front of the constructed shopping complex. 3. The claim of the petitioners squarely rested on the allegation that the respondent has constructed shops in the same plot/area which was earlier occupied by them and therefore, after the new construction they should be allotted shops. This claim of the petitioners is squarely denied by respondents 1, 2 and 5 in their reply. it is specitically pointed out that the new shops are eonstructed in front of the shops which are in occupation of the petitioners and not on the same land which was earlier occupied by the petitioners after the demolition of those shops. At this stage itself, it needs to be noticed what the petitioners have stated in paragraph 4 of the Writ petition, Even according to the petitioners. 36 shops are constructed in the land adjacent to their Gumtis and Thelas etc. / Though that is th pleading in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for petitioners, would contend that the shops e constructed in the land whic was earlier occupied by the petitioners. This contention is required to be noticed only to be rejected for want of support in the pleading. Be that as it may. since 6 shops claimed by the etitioners are constructed in the land in front of the shops now occupied by the petitioner, if the petitioners seek llotment of those shops they should compete with all others who are ligible to compete and they cannot claim any priority or concession in the matter of allotment of those shape. i we keep te mandte of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia also, that is the proper procedure to be followed by the third respondent, e ar h p a e f h a xx -M" Nagar Panchayat. The third respondent who is a State within the meaning of Artic!e 12 of the Constitution, if it wants to part with its Iargecy, it shouid get maximum return in terms of rent or price. That couid be assured only if pubiio auction of the subject shops is conducted. 4. in the result the writ petition is dismissed. 7 sw-j ‘ Chief Justice Q