IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15322 of 2010 GHANSHYAM PRASAD . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . For the Petitioner: Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, A.C.to A.A.G.I For the Legislative Council: Mr. Kaushal Kishore Jha, Adv. ----------- 3/ 02/12/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and for the Bihar State Legislative Council. The petitioner is stated to be a Public Distribution System Dealer, aggrieved by the order dated 14.9.2010 by which he claims to have been made aware of the fact that it is proposed to evict him from Garage No.15 in the campus of M.L.A. Flats situated on the Birchand Patel Path, Patna. It is submitted that on 13.5.1988 he was allotted the said garage for ensuring supplies of essential food grains as a Public Distribution System Dealer to the occupants of the M.L.A. Flats. This was a tenancy agreement to continue till an alternative accommodation was given to him by the Council. In fact, in a Public Interest Litigation being C.W.J.C. No.2290/90 (Arun Kumar Mukherjee vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) the respondents had stated that the present was a temporary arrangement pending a final allotment of premises by them to the petitioner. This proper allotment never came - 2 - to be made by the Public Works Department. On the contrary, the allotment was cancelled on 7.8.2003. The petitioner represented immediately thereafter. The respondents permitted him to continue in occupation and on 15.4.2000 gave further instructions for providing security features for the shop. From the letter it is apparent that the petitioner was continuing in occupation with consent as direction to ensure continued supplies as a Public Distribution System Dealer was given. As late as 5.6.2010 the respondent Public Works Department had issued rent receipts also. From Annexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit it is submitted that his licence has been renewed as recently as 9.8.2007 for the same premises, Garage No.15. The contention therefore is that there is no justification whatsoever for eviction of the petitioner till alternative accommodation is not provided as he can easily be stated to be in lawful occupation of the same. Learned counsel for the State and the Bihar Legislative Council in unison have argued that the allotment came to be cancelled on 7.8.2003. The petitioner never questioned that cancellation before any competent Court of Law. The counter affidavit of the respondents in C.W.J.C. No.2290/90 sought to be relied upon itself indicated that it was a temporary - 3 - arrangement. The challenge to the same is belated and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the grounds of delay. The petitioner has no legal right to continue in occupation of the premises. Learned counsel for the State further submits that unless he obtains instructions it is very difficult for him to answer how the rent receipt dated 5.6.2010 came to be issued by the Public Works Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate any legal right that allocation of premises for running of the Public Distribution System Shop was a part of the agreement under which the licence for the dealership was granted to him and therefore he has a legal right to demand a Mandmus. The grant of the dealership to him is one aspect of the matter. The allocation of the dealership at a place with the approval of the Licensing Authority is another aspect of the matter. The grant of premises by the Licensing Authority and only where the Licensee is permitted to operate as a part of the conditions of the licence is a third aspect of the matter. Neither of the parties have made any submissions on these issues. It is beyond any factual controversy that the petitioner on 13.5.1988 was allotted Garage No.15 for running a shop in the M.L.A. Flats for easy facilitation of - 4 - food grains to the occupants of the flats. It does not stand to reason defying public planning how a garage came to be allotted as a shop. The garage was a Government Premises. It was meant for parking vehicles. Any allotment made to the petitioner for running a shop in a premises meant for parking of vehicles was obviously contrary to the law and illegal. The nature concomitant was that while the shop would operate in the garage the cars would be parked on the road creating further nuisance for the users. It is not without reason that this Court on 4.8.2003 in C.W.J.C. No.2290/90 questioned the State as to how it came to allot garages for shops. It appears that thereafter the respondents finding themselves helpless in view of the queries being made by the Court cancelled the tenancy licence on 7.8.2003. The answer to the Court was furnished. What happened thereafter between the parties emerges in the present writ petition. Both the petitioner and the respondents then connived to continue with an act which they had represented to this Court had been set right. The parties then became in pari delicto to continue with an illegality. If that, per se, was not enough, the illegality was sought to be continued unconcerned with the duties of a Welfare State, more particularly when it related to assurances - 5 - made to the Court. If the allotment of the shop had been cancelled on 7.8.2003 and by any illegal arrangement the petitioner continued to operate from the same premises it shall not vest any legal right in him. The petitioner has been unable to demonstrate any legal right to demand a Mandamus against the respondents for allotment of an alternative premises to him, as was urged, after he vacates the present premises. If the licence requires him to secure premises on his own and obtain an approval of the premises, nothing precludes him from shifting his P.D.S. shop to any other place. If the petitioner is of the opinion that it was a condition of his licence that the granter was obliged to provide him premises, obviously his remedies shall lie before the authorities if he invites their attention to it, as presently no such materials have been placed before the Court. The Court is disturbed by the manner in which the authorities of the State have acted. Having made an illegal allotment, on the query of the Court they purported to cancel it on 7.8.2003, but nonetheless continued with the illegal arrangement so much so that not only have they permitted the petitioner to continue in occupation of the garage, but have also been realizing rent from him. - 6 - The action of the official respondents is therefore clearly and grossly contemptuous. The Court could have issued notice to them for initiation of contempt proceedings. Without doing so, this Court directs the respondents to set right the wrong they have been committing by directing immediate compliance of the representation made by them to the Court and reverting the status of the premises as a garage for parking of vehicles. This Court directs the District Magistrate, Patna to hold an enquiry of the manner and circumstances under which the petitioner continued in occupation of Garage No.15 after 7.8.2003 contrary to the assurances given to this Court and the orders of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2290/90. The District Magistrate shall complete the enquiry within three months, fix responsibility and shall take appropriate action against those concerned, any authority with whose collaboration the petitioner may have continued to occupy the premises illegally. The Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)