s s:;.."s»isa IN THE HXGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATnSOARH WRITPETITIQNito2-2^. 6 /2006 1'* PETITIONERS ....4??/ .^yx y^:'/ .^^>"/ ^^'•:^..-'''' rk-y..^'\n"'' /'J'^"' ^ ^' RESPONDENTS 1. Noor Aalam S/o Mohmmed Khalil, aged about - 34 yars R/o. Qt. No. " 1758, Ward No. 31, Nehru Nagar, Baleo, Distt Korba (C.G.) 2. Samaru Lal Dewangan S/o Parmesh Dewangan, aged about - " 48 years, R/o. Qt. No. 337, Ward No. 32, Parsabhatha Bazar, Balco Nagar, Distt Korba (C.G.) 3. Arun Kumar Choudhary S/o Chhote lal Chaudhaiy, aged about - 30 years, R/o. Qt, No. 485, Sector No. 5, Ward No. 31, Balco Nagar,. Distt Korba (C.G.) 4. Devlal Dewangan S/o Mohit Ram Dewangan aged about - 38 years, ^- R/o. Qt. No. 969, Ward No. 32, Parsabhtha Bazar, Balco Nagar, Distt Korba (C.G.) 5. Dev Narayan Shrivas S/o Chintaram Shrivas, aged about - ^-32 years, R/o. Qt. No. 1089, Ward No. 32, Parsabhatha Bazar, Balco Nagar, Distt Korba (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary Urban Administration and local Self Goveminent, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) The Municipal Corporation Korba, Through - Its Commissioner, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) ^^KS^I^^^^ ;"ilS 'SSSSSSSSS^iSSSSSSS^. -a '[iil ;Ji ^ ^H.i i«H ^ 4^-< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WKIT PETITION No. 2236 of 2006 : Noor Aalam & Others. VERSUS : StateofChliattisgarh&Others. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Pushpendra Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State/respondent No. .1 and2. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 04th day of August, 2010) 1. The petitioners seek to quash the selection list dated 30.01.2006 (Annexure P/l) whereby some ofthe traders carrying on their business at Parsabhata Public Market, Balco, District Korba, have been allotted shops constmcted by the respondent No. 3-Corporation under the lottery system. The petitioners further pray that they may be allotted shops in the said area. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners have been carrying on their business for the last 20-30 years in Parsabhata Public Market, Balco, District Korba. The respondent No. 3-Corporation, by resolution dated 19.7.2002 (Annexure R/4) resolved to construct a shopping eomplex at Parsabhata, wherein the persons, having shops at Parsabhata, Balco, could be allotted proper place. It was further resolved that in the process of construction and allotment ofshops, a ComiTiittee may be constituted to prepare a list of all the traders, secondly a proposal may be made to Balco for making the land available and thirdly, the State Government may be proposed to allot aiTiount for the purpose of construction of ^^,ia <t(^ ^ .^as f' S. U^l'j ^ >... shops and further, permit the respondent-Corporation to allot the proposed shops not by way of lottery, but otherwise on the basis of premium and rent. Shri Agrawal, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3- Corporation submits that fhere is no dispute fhat the list (Annexure P/3) of the traders carrying on their business at Parsabhata Market was prepared wherein the name of the petitioners foimd proper place. Thereafter, on the instruction ofthe State Govemment, permission was granted to the respondent-Corporation to constmct 61 shops and allot the same to the persons/traders carrying on their business at Parsabhata Public Market, Balco on the basis of lottery system. Since there were 106 traders/shop keepers, the lottery system was adopted having regard to the fact that only 61 shops were available. The petitioners participated in the lottery system, conducted in public, but could not succeed and no shops were allotted to them. Thus, fhere is no irregularity, illegality on the part of the respondent-Corporation and further, there is no allegation of any malafide or prejudice against the respondent-Corporation. Having noted the facts of the case, prayer of the petitioner to quash fhe entire select list dated 30.01.2006 (Annexure P/l) for allotment ofshops cannot be quashed as the allotment was made on the basis oflottery system on the ground that shops were limited i.e. 61 in number and fhe list ofthe persons canying on their business at that place was 106. By virtue of order ofstatus quo granted by this Court, on 28.04.2006, no shops have been handed over to the allottees. .^y"'?^^^ f^^ f »' ,!'&»••. 1 S .-'•f ^^ 5. The petitioners, who participated in the lottery and after having failed, have filed this petition. The ground raised by the petitioners are that the respondent-Corporation had initially resolved to allot the shops only to the petitioners/shop keepers who were running/carrying on their business for the last 20-30 years in that particular area on the basis of premium aad rent and at the time of actual allotment, lottery system in a very arbitrary and illegal manner was adopted. 6. On pemsal ofthe resolution, contention ofthe petitioners deserves to be rejected on a simple ground that the Corporation had only resolved, as stated above, but no formal order was passed thereafter. There was a simple proposal to the State Govemment which was not accepted by the State Govemment and the respondent-Corporation was pennitted to construct 61 shops and allot them on the basis of lottery system. The petitioner has further not impleaded the persons who have been allotted the shops, on lottery system. 7. In the case on hand, the petitioners have not raised the issue of allotment by lottery system at any stage. If this was illegal, according to the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have raised before participating in allotment by lottery system. Jurisdictional issue, alone may be raised even thereafter. (See: .H.V.Nirmala v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation & Others ). 8. The Supreme Court, in Sadananda Halo & Others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh & Others , the Supreme Court observed as under: "59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful eandidates cannot tum back and assail the selection process. There are ofcourse ' (2008)7 SCC 639 ^.G008)4SCC619 ^ ^ I: the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was also reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S.Vinodh Kumar where one of us (Sinha, J.) was a party." 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, interim relief granted on 28.04.2006 is vacated. However, on the request of leamed counsel for the petitioners, it is expected that the respondent-Corporation shall look into the grievance of the petitioner, if they make appropriate application before the appropriate authority. 10. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Amit