IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1258 of 2005 (M/S) M/s Paradise Fruit Center. .……… Petitioner Versus Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & another. ...……… Respondents Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.C. Belwal, Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate for the Intervener. & Writ Petition No. 1259 of 2005 (M/S) Matin Ali. .……… Petitioner Versus Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & another. ...……… Respondents Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.C. Belwal, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. CLMA No. 2274 of 2009 in WPMS No. 1258 of 2005: For the reasons stated, the Application is allowed. The applicant is permitted to intervene in the petition without filing any pleadings. The Application stands disposed of. WPMS No. 1258 of 2005 & WPMS No. 1259 of 2005: Counter affidavits have been filed in both the Writ Petitions. By this common order, both these petitions are being disposed of together. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. These cases are a glaring example of a gross abuse of the process of the Court as well as law. In the Suits filed by the plaintiffs / petitioners in both the Writ Petitions, the entire controversy projected by the plaintiffs revolves around the plaintiffs’ alleged grievance about the allotment of 2 particular shops to them. In both the plaints, the plaintiffs repeatedly lay their claim to particular shops with a grievance that whereas these particular shops should be allotted to them, the defendants in the Suits are trying to allot these particular shops to someone else. There is no other averment in the Plaints with respect to any other subject matter or controversy. Specifically, there is no challenge to any policy of allotment. The prayer of the plaintiffs also, in the ultimate analysis, revolves around allotment of particular shops in their favour. Keeping the aforesaid in mind, it is very strange that an order has been passed by this Court on 28th October, 2005, in both the writ petitions, whereby not only the impugned order dated 20th September, 2005 passed by the learned court below has been stayed, but the policy with respect to allotment of shops, which is being implemented, has also been stayed. Further, this Court has also stayed the allotment of shops by the respondents / defendants. I fail to understand as to how could an order, staying the implementation of the policy of allotment as well as the very allotment of shops, be passed when the plaintiffs in the Suits are laying their claim and basing their grievance only with respect to the allotment of particular shops in their favour. As far as the allotment of particular shops in favour of the plaintiffs is concerned, whichever shops have to be allotted to them, shall be allotted in accordance with the principles as contained in the policy of allotment. The plaintiffs cannot claim the allotment of particular shops in their favour. The allotments have to be made based on equitable considerations as well as linked with the norms and the policy of allotment. Because both these writ petitions were totally misconceived and baseless and, by a gross abuse of process of law, the petitioners managed to obtain the aforesaid ad interim order which has been now operating for almost 3 ½ years, both are dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000/- each to be paid by the petitioners / plaintiffs in both the cases by depositing in the 3 Advocates’ Welfare Fund within four weeks from today. The interim orders dated 28th October, 2005 are also vacated. (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 30.03.2009 G