SCA/4765/1987 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4765 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= VINODKUMAR BECHARBHAI PARMAR - Petitioner(s) Versus THE CHAIRMAN & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Petitioner(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, MR MD RANA for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 22/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to accept his bid and allot the shop No.4 in the building constructed by the respondent No.2 – Gondal Nagarpalika. SCA/4765/1987 2/3 JUDGMENT Shortly stated, the facts are as follows. In shopping center belonging to the respondent No.2 – Gondal Municipality, several shops were to be sold through auction. Three shops viz. Shop Nos.4, 22 and 23 were reserved for members of the Scheduled Caste. The applicant – petitioner belongs to the said community, applied for allotment of the shop. As stated in the petition, except for the petitioner, there was no other bidder in the said category. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the petitioner should have been allotted shop as there was no other bid or bidder. Since the respondents did not allot the shops to the petitioner, he has filed the present petition. The respondents have opposed the petition by filing affidavit. In addition to contending that the petition is belatedly filed, stated that the petitioner is a well-to-do person. He has petrol pump and other properties in his name. He is owner of Saurashtra Trading Company. Shop Nos.4, 22 and 23 were allotted by the Municipality to the other members of the Scheduled Caste community who were needy. One person who was occupying the cabin where the shopping center was constructed, was given a shop. The other shops were allotted to other scheduled caste members who had small income. Further auction was held on 11.2.1988, in which, the petitioner did not participate. Though the reply was filed way back in the year 1988, no Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. The method adopted by respondent Gondal Municipality for allotment of the said shops is of course unusual and if challenged, SCA/4765/1987 3/3 JUDGMENT perhaps may not survive in the test of legality. However, in the present petition, particularly, in absence of such allottees, it is not possible to examine the legality thereof. However, so far as the petitioner is concerned, I do not find he has made out case for grant of relief as prayed for by him. The petitioner has not stated as to what was the upset price fixed. He has also not stated as to whether he was ready to tender full consideration immediately. In any case, in absence of any competition whatsoever, i.e. only one applicant for three shops, element of competition completely disappeared. Even otherwise, it is not incumbent upon the respondent No.2 to compulsorily sale the shops once the auction notice is issued in the newspaper and for the justified reasons, it is always open for the owner not to hold auction. In the result, the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. ( Akil Kureshi, J. ) kailash, p.s.