HIGH COURT OF CHH ’ IRENDRA MISHRA. & ’ Writ Aggeal No. 277 of 20w ’ Noor Aalam S/o Mohed Khalil, aged about 34 years Rio Qt No 1758 Ward No.31, Nehru Nagar, Balc‘o’. Districtkor-ba (C’) 1. Samaru Lal Dewangan, S/o Parmesh Dewangan, aged about 48 years, Rio Qt.No.337, Wad No.32, Parsabhatha Bazar, Baico Ngar, District Korba (CG) 2. Dev§ai Dewanaan 8/0 Mohit Ram Dewangan aged abeu: 3 yegrs,‘ Rio Qt.Nc.969 Ward No.32, Farabhata Bazar‘ Baico Nagar.‘Diatrict.Korba (C 3. 8 , s G) 4. Dev Narayan $hrivas $to Chintaram Shriva, aged abem 32 yeam, R19 Qi.Ne.1089, Wam N932, ?arshaia Eazar, Baico Nagar. Dismct KOVba G Versus ’l . $tat of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretar Urban Admira§s§rat§erz & Lesa} Self Qwemmen 3K8 Bhawan, alpur, ‘rstrlct Rapur (66} The ollector, Ka, Dimer Korea {ee C ma l 3. The Municial Carporatlon Korba Through lts Commlesionr, Kerba, District Korba (CG) 4. Arun Kumar Choudhary S/o Chhote Lal Choudhary, aged about 3 years, Rio Qt.No.4, Sector No.5, ard M331, Balco Nar, Korba, District Korba (CG) )h Present: Mr PK Patel counsel for the appellant Mr. Sumesh ‘Bajaj Govt Advocate for the-gatate. Mr: Sanjay K. Aérawai with i‘llir. B.D. Guru, counsel for respondent No.3. vent. JUDGMENT (33?“ September, 203:0) Per Dhirendra Mishra J The instant writ appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 4"” August, 2010 of learned $ingle Judge, whereby the writ petition fiied by the petitioners for quashing the selection list of the beneficiaries tor aliotment of shops prepared by respondent No.3 ahd for further direction to ailot shops to the petitioners, who are carrying their business since iast 20-30 years on the work site, and only thereafter ailot the shops to other persons, has been dismissed. DB. HONBLE SHRI DH HONBLE SHRI RN. CHANQRAKAR, J J Appeilants mm Petitioners G r a s ab (C) e y t. R i3 i p ' , : e 0 85 W ag Respondents W; Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondents could not have aliotted the shops by draw of lottery as there is no such provision under the Municipalities Act for allotment of shops belonging to the Municipal l Corporation. There was nothing on record before the learned Single Judge to show that the State Government had accorded permission to the Municipal Corporation to allot the newly constructed 61 shops to the persons/traders carrying on their business at Parshabhata Public Market! Balco on the basis of lottery system. The impugned order has been passed also on the ground that the appeliants participated in the aliotment proceedings, which was made on the basis of draw of lottew, whereas the appeilants, in their rejoinder, have categorically stated that they did not participate in the allotment proceedings by lottery. However. this aspect has also been ignored by the learned Singie Judge. The petition has also been dismissed on the ground of non—joinder of allottees of the shops in the petition as necessary party, though the petitioners had categorically averred in the petition/rejoinder that possession of the disputed shops has not been handed over to the allottees. On the other hand‘ Mr. SanjayK. Agrawal with Mr. B.D. Guru, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3-Municipai Corporation. vehemently argued that the Corporation in its Resolution dated 19““ July, 2002 (Annexure R-3/3) had resolved to make allotment of the proposed shops without auction or without inviting tenders to the traders engaged in the trade on the work site on..fixed premium and rent. The above resolution was duly forwarded to the State Government for its approval vide letter of Annexure R—3/2 dated 12‘“ July, 2004 and permission was accorded by the State Government vide its order dated 103.2005 of Annexure R-311. Since algshops were constructed on the work site, whereas 106 traders. who were doing their business on the work site, were eligible tor altotment, the Corporation decided to allot the shops by following the procedure of allotment by draw of lottery. Relying upon the decision of this Court dated 27.7.2010 passed in Wn‘t Appeal No.210/2010 in the matter of Bhagirathi Yadav Vs, Managing Director, BSP & others, and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Greater Mohalr' Area Development Authority & another Vs. Manju Jain and others, reported in JT 2010 (9) SC 17, it is argued that the system of draw of lots is resorted to with a view to identify the prospective allottee. lt is only a mode, a method, a process to identify the‘allottee i.e. the process of selection. )A’llotment of shops through draw of lots avoids favouritism, discrimination, and nepotism and therefore, the same cannot be faulted where the number of eligible candidates is more than the number of shops available for allotment. -\\// K ,/ ts Heard iearned counsel for the parties and perused the material avaimble on record including the impugned order. tndisputably, the apperiants as also other perisons‘ who have been ailofted shops through draw of lots by respondent No.3: were erigible for allotment of shops as all of them were carrying their business on the work site before the shopping complex wae constructed. From the documents placed on record, we also Find that the Corporation resolved to allot the shops without resorting to auction or without inviting tenders and previous sanction of the State Government was obtained'as per Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Transfer of immovable Property) Rules, 1994. in view of the above undisputed facts, we are of the opinion that the procedure followed by the Corporation for allotment of shops by draw of lottery cannot be faulted. There is no substance in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself.. Sd/— ‘ Dhirendra Mishra‘ Judge Sdl- / R.N. Chandrakar {\V " i Judge ‘