HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR W WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 511 OF 2008 PETITIONER Brajrajnagar Vyap’ari Multi Co—Operative Society. Purpose Versus RESPONDENTS Union of India and others ORDER POST OgjéANUARY 2008 / m ’ T (1/ 7/ Sd/— ' Dhirendra Misi'iray Judge J HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WRIT PE’HTION (C) N0. 511 OF 2008 PETITIONER Brajrajnagar Vyapari Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society, Through the General Secretary, Murlidhar Shanna SID Late Shri Braj Bihaxi Shanna aged about 36 years, R/o Bus Stand, Brajrajnagar, District— Jharsuguda (Orissa) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Through Lhe Execu Live Director, Railwav Board. New Delhi. 2. The General Manager ‘ South East Centrai Réilway, Zone—Bilaspur (CG} 3. The‘Divisional Railway Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Division, Biiaspur (CG) The Sr. Divisidnal Engineer (East). South East Central Railway; Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG) 5, The Additional Divisional Engineer, South East Central Railway, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) The Sr. Section Engineer (Works) , South East Central Railway, Raigarh, Distiict Raigarh (CG) The Section Engineer (Works) South East Central Railway, Raigax'h, District Raigarh (CG) Chief Station Master, Brajrajnagar, South East Central Railway, Brajrajnagar, Jone Bilaspur, District Jharsuguda (Orissal Present: Mr. RS. Khare. counsel for the netitioner. Mr. Amit Choudhaxy, counsel for the respondents. ORDER Dhirendra Mishra, J (Passed onQgli‘January 2008) The petitioner—Cooperative Society by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for direction to the Atespondent authorities to act in accordance with the Railway Board Circular dated 19th December 2002 of Annexure .P/6. mevy, i/ ’) a 2. The p€tifjoner - a Cooyerative Socist of the shkeers running their business in Brajrajnagar railway station, has $ed this peu'tion with the averments that regisration of he Co-operative Society is under process. Respondent No. 1 vide teir Cimular dated 19th December 2002 (Annexule P/ 6) has issued instructions to all the General Managers of Zonal Railways regarding deveopment of shopping complex on the railway land through Co-operave Societies of existing shopkeepers at one way-side station on each dision. With a rpos to give eEect to the proposal f Annexure P/6, a committee constituted by the railway uthorities has prepaled a pla for costruction of shping mplex de Annexuie P/9. The shopkeepers submitted their willingness and consent to pondent No. 7. However, the respondents did not procee further a all of a sudden, a notice of Annexuie P] 1 was issued to all th shopkeepers in the month of December 2007 irecting them to remove the encroachment within 10 days of the receipt of the notice or ese action has been contemplated. Their oral prayer for deferring removal of encroachment till construction of shopping complex through Co-operative Soeti of the shopkeepers and allotment of the shops in the complex, was not acceded. The mspondent authorities have already demolished 35 shops in hont of station building and other shops axe to be demolished by 28th Januaiy 2008. It has been further pleaded that Co-operative Society of the shopkeepers has already been formed as per Be-law of Annure P/4 and application for registration of the Co—operative Society has already been submitd vide Annexure P/S to the concerned Assistant Registrar, Documents have also been tiled on behalf of the individual shopkeepers wereby they have communicated the railway authorities regarding their willingness to abide by all the rules and regulations of the Railway Board for allotment of individual shops as per Circular of Annexure P/ 8. 3. The respondents in their return have submitted that the members of the petitioner-society are encroachers and as such, they have no right to remain in .unauthorized possession of the government land. The shopkeepers were granted concession by way of Circular of Annexure P/6 for development of planned shopping complex through co-operative societies of existing licensed and authorized shopkeepers, however, they did not avail the concessions granted to them for a period of six years. A meeting was convened on . g3 Q ix . H y onep t t h ti l vi pue o a n n op co Vi Ies d nd e d l cies y ex te h 3 24.122007 between the petitioner-society replesented by a local M.L.A. and the Railwav and other local authoriu'es and in the said meeting representative of the petitioner-society assured that the encroachment shall be removed latest by 10th January 2008, failing which demolition of the shops may be undertaken. Thhty five shops have already been demolished with the consent of the shopkeepers. Removal of encmachment is necessary for providing parking space and other amenities on account of increase in tra$c and number of travelers. Copy of the proceedings of the above meeting has been annexed as Annexure R! 1. The shopkeepers did not communicate their willingness nor they got their Society registered in accordance with the scheme proposed vide Railway Board Circular of Annexuxe Pl6 even after a lapse of four years when they were apprised about the said Circular and the proposal of construction of shopping complex in the year 2004. In these circumstances, the railway authorities were left with no other option except to initiate proceedings for removal of the encroachment in accordance With law. 4. l have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From perusal of the Circular of Annexuie R16 dated 19m December 2002 it is apparent that the Railway Board for the development of planned shopping complex, as an experimental measure, decided to construct a shopping complex through co- operative societies of the existing shopkeepers at one way—side station ‘ on each division and as per the decision development of the shopping complex in Brajiajnagar station through co-operative society was also planned and construction of shopping complex was proposed vide Annexure P/7 dated 3rd February 2004, From perusal of paragraph 5.5 of the petition it is clear that that the unauthorized shopkeepers were directed to form a co-operative society and send their Willingness to the omce for further direction for compliance of the Railway Boani Circular of Annexure P/6. However, no steps were taken by the shopkeepers towards formation of co-operative society and the process for regisuation of the society was commenced only in the month of Januarv 2008 as is evident from the documents of AnnexuresP/3, P14 and PIS. The instant petition has been filed by an unregistered co-operative society through its General Secretary. Thus, from perusal of the averments in the pen'tion and the i .q . l i 4 . documents annexed with this petition, I am of the opinion that the shopkeepers themselves did not take any action to avail the concessions extended to them in pursuance of Annexnre P16 of the Railvvay Boaxd for a considerable pen‘od of about four years when they were dilected to form registexed co—operative society and steps towanis xegistration of the co-operative society were taken only after milways decided to remove the encroachment. 6. This petition has been filed by an unregistered co—operative society. The petitioner-society could not demonstrate any legal right to possess the shops in the railway area except concession extended to them vide Circular of Annexure P/6 and since they themselves did not take required steps in accordance with the said Circular for a considerable period, I am of the considered opinion that the instant petition at their instance cannot be entertained and the same deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is accordingly, dismissed. ' 7; In View of above, I.A.No. 01, application for interim relief stands disposed of Sd/- ‘ Dhirendra Misilrai Judge g/ 1/ -' J///». / »