IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 366 of 2010. Hazi Naseem Ahmad son of Sri Jumma resident of Village Barkhera Pandey, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. Vs. … Petitioner. 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. The Zila Panchayat Udham Singh Nagar through its Chairman. 3. The Additional Chief Officer, Jila Panchayat Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. …Respondents. Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1. Mr. A.D.Tripathi, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Mr. I.D.Paliwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the intervener-Mohd. Irshad. Date April 28, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. record. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Apar Mukhya Adhikari of Zila Panchayat Udham Singh Nagar is present in person along with record. Learned counsel for Zila Panchayat files copy of Bye- Laws of Zila Panchayat Udham Singh Nagar. The same is taken on record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- a. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 6-2-2010 so far as it relates to Barkehra Pandey Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. b. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to renew the licence of petitioner of Hat Bazar of Barkehra Pandey Kashipur, district Udham Singh Nagar. 2 c. Any other order or directions, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case. d. Cost of the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had applied for renewal of licence of Hat Bazar in village Barkheda Pandey, Kashipur, in his own land bearing plot no. 240/1. According to the petitioner, the licence fee for the years 2006 to 2010 was paid on 5-3-2010. The petitioner also applied for renewal of licence for the current year. The application was allowed by the respondents on 10-7-2009 as is evident from Annexure RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- as licence fee for the same as per Bye Laws of Zila Panchayat. The said amount was not deposited, therefore, the respondent authority proceeded for auction and advertisement was issued on 6-2-2010. Pursuant to the advertisement, auction was conducted on 23-2-2010 and the auction was made in favour of intervener Mohd. Irshad. The petitioner was not permitted in the auction on the ground that the petitioner was defaulter. The licence fee of the earlier years was not deposited by his brother Fakir Mohammad and after his death, the petitioner had applied for the licence to be renewed. It is pertinent to mention here that the auction, which was conducted on 23-2-2010, was not challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Therefore, the first prayer made by the petitioner is rendered infructuous. The second prayer of the petitioner is for direction to the respondents to renew the licence of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the defaulted amount had already been deposited by the petitioner. However the petitioner did not deposit the licence fee for the year 2010-2011, therefore, the auction was conducted. Learned counsel appearing for Zila Panchayat Mr. A.D. Tripathi, Advocate, has vehemently urged that there can be 3 only one Hat Bazar in one village and on the ground of default, the petitioner was not permitted to participate in the auction. I have perused the Bye-Laws of Zila Panchayat. There is no such condition mentioned in the bye-laws to indicate that if the licence is granted for Hat Bazar in a village, other persons cannot be granted licence for Hat Bazar in his own land. The petitioner has also filed a list of Hat Bazar of the village, as Annexure RA-3 to the rejoinder affidavit, wherein Hat Bazar of Barkheda Pandey has been shown in the own land. This fact is not disputed that the Zila Panchayat is not having its own land for Hat Bazar. The intervener has to arrange the land for the purpose of Hat Bazar. Since there is no bar in the bye-laws of Zila Panchayat to indicate that if the auction has been made in favour of one person, other cannot be given licence for Hat Bazar on his own land and there is no requirement of auction if a person is having his own land as per Clause 18 and 19 of the Bye Laws. The petitioner’s brother Fakir Mohammad was having licence since 2006 and thereafter permission was granted to the petitioner by respondent nos. 2 and 3 on 10-7-2009. The petitioner had already deposited the defaulted amount of licence fee and he is ready to deposit the licence fee of Rs. 20,000/- per year for the next year i.e. 2010-11. If the petitioner deposits the amount of Rs. 20,000/- as licence fee and applies for registration and for renewal of his licence, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to complete all the formalities and to renew the licence for the year 2010-2011 on completion of the legal formalities as per bye-laws. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. The interim order dated 19-3-2010 is vacated. RCP (B.S.Verma,J.) 4