1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3233 OF 2007 Dayashankar Solanath Tripathi. ...Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.R.G.Ketkar, for Petitioner. Mr.P.M.Patil, A.G.P. For Respondent no.1. Mr.S.S.Kulkarni, for Respondent no.4. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED: 11th June, 2008. P.C.:- 1. The only prayer made by the petitioner in the petition is that the municipal Council should be directed to allot to the petitioner stall no.24. The entire case of the petitioner is based on the alleged oral assurance given by the municipal Council to 2 allot to the petitioner a gala in the newly constructed market because, according to the petitioner, his existing gala was required to be removed for road widening. With the petition there is no document filed showing that the Municipal council had assured him allotment of a gala in the newly constructed market. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner states that the respondent-municipal council has, in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipal Council, admitted that such an assurance was given to the petitioner. On reading paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipal Council, we do not find any statement made that the petitioner was given any assurance specifically for allotment of gala to the petitioner. There is a general statement made that there were several authorised and unauthorised stall holders who were required to be removed for road widening and the municipal council has taken decision to accommodate them. But considering the development control regulation prevailing on that date the Municipal Council was able to construct only a limited number of stalls and could accommodate only 50 stall 3 holders. A list was prepared by the Council of the allottees and the stalls were allotted accordingly. In the petition, there is no challenge to the preparation of the list of allottees and therefore, it is clear that whatever stalls the municipal council have constructed have been allotted to those persons who, according to the municipal council, were entitled to the allotment. We do not find any challenge to the allotment list prepared by the municipal council. 2. So far as the submission of the petitioner that the municipal Council has agreed to allot shop to the petitioner is concerned, it is solely based on the alleged oral assurance given by the municipal Council to the petitioner for which there is no document produced on record. The alleged assurance therefore is a question of facts. Therefore, the petition cannot be entertained. Hence, the petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) 4 (R.Y.GANOO,J.) ---