HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH.AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No- 2067 of2007 1. Ku. Pratiina Pal, aged about 25 years, D/o Deenram Pal, R/o Station Para, 'Wai-d No. 10, Rajaandgaon 2. Nasir Hussain. aged about 32 vears. S/o Ahnied Hussain, R/o Ram Nagar, Power House, Ward No. 27, Rajnandgaon (CG). 3. Umeshwar Shrivastava, aged about 33 years, S/o Ramdhmilai, R/'o Khandelwal Colony, Rajnandgaon 4. Hemaat Kumar Nirma.lkai-, aged about 32 years, S/o Thanuram, R/o Behind Disfrict Qffice, Rajnandgaon (CG). 5. Shiwataa Sinlia, aged about 35 yeare S/o Murlidfaar Sinlia, R'o Ram Nagar Ward No. 5, Rajnandgaon (CG). 6. Smt. Bhaiti Chuthavaiu, aeed about 30 years, W/o Krishnakumar, R;'o Bharkapara, Ward No. 27, Rajnandgaon (CG). 7. Aml Kumar Yadav, aged about 31 years, S/o late Shankarlal Yadav, R/o Gol Bazar, Near Gol Ottice, Ward No. 23, Rajnmdgaon (CG). 8. Bishal Pansari, aged about 36 years, S/o Horiial Pansari, R/o Jamatpara, Ward No. 22, Rajnandgaon (GG). 9. Naresh Gajbbhiye, aged about 33 yeai-s, S/o Laxman Rao, Rj'o Asfaok Rice Miii Road, Lakhoki Ward No. 27,'Rajnandgaon (CG). 10.Prasha.nt Sukhdeve, aged about 30 years, S./o late Maniram, R/o Near Pappii Atta Chaki, Korinbhata, Vard No. 39, Rajnandgaon (CG). of Chhattisearh tla-ough its Secretan', Avas ^.ys^5\~"":i<^ !^^, I !a. %..y<^,_ ^* —"?^ '-SSS'sSSS Parvavaraa Avam Naeariva Vikas Vi'ohag. 2. Municipai Corpc.ration, Rajnandgaon. (m<IT PE'miON UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE CONS'nTUTION OF WDiA) 'f. Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. AgnBiotri, J.) Present : Sfari Parag Kotecha. Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Shasharik Thakur, Paiel Lawyer for the Stats/respo; Anand Shukla, Advocate fbr the respondent No.2. .+ 'N.TNo. 1. 3. (Passed oa 12"' day ofFcisraaiy, 2009) Witli the consent ofthe parties, tlie matter is taken up for h.earing linally. T'he petitioners challenee the leealitv and validitv offhe ordei- wherebv the respoadent/'corporation had chareed a sum of Rs. 800/- per montii as reat tbr the shops allotted to fhe petitionei-s. Leanied counsel appearing fbr the petitionCTS submits fhat Ifae shops constructed at ward No. 14 in the area of 8X10 Sq.tt. each shop were allotted to 'the petitioners on tenancy and monthly rent had been fixed at the rate of Rs. 800/- and the securits.' amount was P.5. 8000/'- Th have objection to rental chai'ge at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month, as other persons faave been allotted shops iii other areas and the rental charee from theai is Rs. 400/- per montii, thus tiiere is a discrimhiation and the respondent/coiporation may be directed to charge a sum of'Rs. 400/- as reat and the excess payment may be directed to be relunded or adjusted. T'he respondent/co.t-po.ration tiied a retum subauttme tfaat tlie petitioners are tenant ofnewly coastn.icted shops situate at Ward No. 14 Naya Bus Stand, Rajnandgaon, and the ai-ea of shops is 8X10 Sq.fcThe petitioners accepted the ailotment of' shops whereia tliere was specific condition of payment of Rs. 800/- as rent per moafh and security ainount of Rs. 8000/-. The tefs continued to deoosit after execution ot'K.iravanama. Rent offhe MI? ^, shops allocated in the commerciai area is Rs. 800/- when the shops allocated in the non commercial area. is Rs. 400/- per month by grantins 50% rebate m tiie rental amount. This decision was taken on the basis of resolution passed by the Municipai Cotporatioii, Rajnandgaon on 12.12.05. The shops ofthe petitioners are srtuated in the cominercial area and ofher shops are in the non conanercial area. The petitionei-s accepted tne terms aiid conditions in accordance with Kirayanama. Tfaus, raismg objection at this stage is not pemnssible. I have heard leamed counsel appearma for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. fl is clear tiiat there is no discruaiaation or arbitrariness as the petitioners were allotted shops .ia eomnierciai area in Ward No. 14 Naya Bus Stand, F^ajnandgaoii, aad tfaey accepted the temis an.d condition and started paying rent. Raismg objection at ftiis stage compariag with tlie shops which is situated in non commerciai area. wherein rental amoimt is less. is not sustamable in iaw. This petition is devoid ofmerit and is accordmglv dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK. Judge