?^;^^^' ..-^* StSt l'•t-. Lt<4^ <3T\ (6|ia-ll° M^H*' SsV^.^^. 'TL*r^T- ^^Ju^t fc^, ^K^f^ ^ t^i AMENDED PETITION IN TJE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARILAT BJLASPUR W, P. (C] Np. 1750 oL2Q10 ~\i PETITIONER -y RESPONDENTS ^t-'~^v '^/^y Pawan Mittal, S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Mittal, aged about 25 years, resident of Mittal Niwas, Behind of Nagar Nigam Colony, Bilaspur, Tahsil SE District- Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through ths Secretar}r Nagariya Prashasanm Evam Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Deputy Secretary, Nagariya Prashasan Evain Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS :1. 3. Commissioner, Municipal CQrporation, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (C.G.) "5. Under Secretary, Nagariya Prashashan Evam Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhaw&a, Mautralaya, Icaipur |C.G.(" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 2. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER :- As stated above in cause title. ?AI?,'nCULARS_OF_THBRESPONDENTS :. As stated above in cause title. 3. ORDER AGAINST WHICH PETITION IS MADE:- The petition is preferred against the letter dated 25.11.09 issued by the respondent no. 2 directing the respondent no. 3 to re-auction the open Terries of the a.i.uaia ^i.^S!»w&!S^ '".^^^^^^-y ^ a •f^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Q-No. 1750 of 2010 PETITIONER Pawan Mittal RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & others Judgment for consideration Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusi, J, --.__^_^^^ Sd/- I.M. Quddusi / Judge pri'?^ lf"^' Postfor 1^/05/2011 Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge -.afc HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt_Petition [CLNo^lTSO of 2010 PETITIONER Pawan Mittal VEI^US KESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUT10N OF INDIA (DB: Hon'ble Mr. I.M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Mr. N.K^Aearwau, «J._Ji Present : Shri Raghvendra Pradhan with Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate Geseral with Sbri Vinod Destunukh, Advocate respondent No. 1 & 2. Shri AS Kachhwaha, Advocate for respondent No. 3&4. JUDGMENT {OeUvered on l ~i- .05.201 1} Per : N.K. Agarwal, J. 1. The instaat petition, ffled under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India, catls in question the legalitv aad propriety of orders dated 25.11.09, 29.11.2009 and 11.01,2010. 2. Vide public notice dated 25.01.2009, published ia Aa3y newspaper (Navbhai-at), Miinicipal Corporation, Bilaspiir (for short ' the Corporationl invited offers for sale of roof rights of 72 shops of Shahid Bhagat Singh Coinplex, Zone No. 1, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, ofl'set price of which was fixed as Rs. 600/- per sq. feet. 3. Petitioner also fiUed his tender. Tenders were opened. Petitioner was highest bidder as his offer for purchase of roof right @ 1008/ - per sq. feet was found highest. His offer was approved by Mayor in Council aad general body of the Corporation and the same was sent to State Goveminent for sanction as per proviso (ii) of Section 80 (5) of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short ' the Act, 1956') read with rule 7 of Traasfer of Imtnovabte Property Rules, 1994 (for short 'Rules, 19941. Instead of according saaction, fhe State Goveminent, vide its letter dated 25.11.2009, directed ftie Corporation for inviting fresh offers to sale roof rights fhrough auction. Petitioner was accordingly intunated by fhe Corporation vide its letter dated 11.01.10 and the amount deposited by fhe petitioner was refunded to him. , 4. The above refunded aaiount was re-deposited by tlie petitioner pursuant to order oftbis court dated 29,06.2010. 5. This court, vide its order dated 01.09.2010, passed foUowing orders : °.........In view of above, we direct the State Goverrunent that the oflfer shaU be reconsidered in the Ught of the goveminent order dated 12.03.2010 and after takiag fhe fi-esh decision, fhe Govemnient shatt apprise fhis court through leamed Dy. Advocate General Shri Vinay Harit about the decision and reasons thereof......." 6. The State Govemment, fhereafter vide its letter dated 29.11.2010 alfbough reviewed its previous order dated 25.11.2009 affirming fhe proceduie inviting ofFer iu sealed cover, but instead of accoiding sanction, directed fhe Corporation to invite tresh ofFers, 7. Sbri Raghvendra Pradhau, leamed counsel appeari&g for the petitioner would submit: fhe State Goverament has refiised to m accord sanction without assigning any reason whatsoever fherefor in. niost arbitrary inanner. According to htm, once tlie State Goverrunent has reviewed its earlier order affirming sale of roof rights by adopting tender method, there was no rhyme or reason for directiug fhe Corporation to iavite fresh tenders and the State Goverument sbould have accepted petitioner^s offer, therefore, orders impugned dated 25.11.2009, 29.11.2010 and 11.01.2010 deserve to be quashed. 8. On the other liaad Shri Vinay Harit, Leamed Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State would submit : inarket value of above property has already been increased; in order to get more price, fhe State Goveminent has bonalidely directed for re- tendering; till sanction is not accorded, fhe offer reniains offer and fhe petitioner has no legal rigbt to insist the Corporation or the State Goveminent to accept his offer. 9. We have heard the counsel appeariitg for the pardes and perused fhe orders impugned. 10. As per rule 3 of Rules, 1994, no immovable property which yields or is capable ofyielding an uicoine shaU be transferred by sale, or otherwise conveyed except to the highest bidder at a public auction or by inviting ofiFer in a sealed cover. Therefore, tbe Corporation has adopted legal saode i.e. by inviting offer iti a sealed cover to transfer the roofrights. 11. Vide order dated 29.11.2009, fhe State Govermnent reviewed its earlier order dated 25.11.2009 directinB for transfer ofrights by inviting offers ia a sealed cover which was ia fact adopted by the Cprporation, ia which, petitioner was found highest liidder. ini' ^ •ts'wsfs 4 Therelbre. while directing the Corporation to transfer roof rights by iavituig fresh tenders, it was inciunbent lipon tbe State Govenunent to assign reasons therefor, no reasons have been assigned, and fherefore, order passed by the State Oovemment is arbitrary aad deserves to be quashed. 12. For the reasons inentioned hereinabove, in oui considered opinion, orders impugned dated 25.11.2009, 29.11.2010 and 11.01.2010 are arbitrary and not in accordance with law. The same deserve to be and are hereby qziashed. The niatter is reiaitted back to the respondent/ State to reconsider its decision and to pass appropriate orders assigning reasons in detail in the light ofobservations inade heremabove. . 13. Petition is accordingly allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- I-M. Quddusi Judge /L Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge Sahu