IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2825 of 2008 HARI OM KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 04. 21.01.2010 Petitioner asserts that pursuant to an advertisement issued for letting out the shop of the Lakhisarai Municipal Corporation, petitioner applied. Being the sole applicant, he was selected and allotted shop No. 16. It was found that Respondent No. 5 was already in possession of that shop and as evident from Annexure-6 to the writ petition police help was sought by the Executive Officer to evict Sri Ramdas Ram, Respondent No. 5 by letter dated 27.12.2007 so that possession may be given to the petitioner. It is now undisputed that till today Respondent No. 5 has neither been evicted nor the shop be given in possession of the petitioner. Respondent No. 5 has appeared and states that he was allotted the shop long before the advertisement and was occupying the same. There was a default in payment of rent and it is because of that his occupation was held to be illegal and he was sought to be forcibly evicted. He having made good the default, his possession should not be interfered with. In such view of the matter, he submits that petitioner may be given 2 some other premises and that his possession can not be disturbed. Petitioner on the other hand submits that the agreement with respondent No. 5 has been entered much later sometime in 2008 much after the petitioner and that agreement can not get precedence. As noticed above the stand of respondent No. 5 is that he has been in occupation since much before the agreement and the agreement only formalized his relationship, after default was cleared. In my view, these are facts seriously in dispute and further petitioner’s own annexure-10 show that in Corporation’s record also there has been some interpolations. It is not possible for this Court to reconcile these facts in these summary proceedings. This Court thus does not consider it to be a fit case for interference. I direct the Corporation to notice both the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 5 in regards to the rights as asserted by them in relation to the said shop No. 16. They would file their paper documents and after hearing both the parties, the Executive Officer of the Corporation would determine as to who is legally entitled to be given possession thereof and how the possession would be given to the said person, if at, all in accordance with law. The said 3 decision would be taken within a period of three months from today. With these observations, the writ petition itself is disposed off. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)