6 IN THE HON*BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.p.fqNo. 5? /2oio(s.B.) S^N6L£ BENCH PETITIONER RESPONDENTS f ^ ^v..<<< ^ /.\°^w' , ^>^^;'"....< ^^\^ ^ ^•^x ^ : Bhagirathi Yadav, S/o Vasudeo Yadav, aged about 48 years, R/o Chhattisgarh Sabji Mandi, Ruabandha, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) 2. Executive Director, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. Manager (T.S.D. - shop) Town Services Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg(C.G.) 4. Assistant General Manager, (T.S.D.- shops) Town Service Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDLA, Petitioner Respondents HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH_AT BILASPUR WRIT PET3TION (C) N0. 33of2010 Bhagirathi Yadav Versus Managing Director & Others ^)0 WRiT PETITiQN UNDER ARTiCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF INDiA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :n Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate for the petjtioner. Shri B.D. Guru, Advocate for the respondents. Shri Awadh Tripathi. Advocate for the infervener. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on 29th day of June,2010) 1. By this petltlon, the petltioner seeks a dlrection to the respondents to ailot shop No. 1 to the petitioner and quash theorder dated 30/12/2009 whereby it has been decided to ailot shops to the petitioner aiong with others by way of draw of lottery and further, the shops should be aiiolted as per the updated iist (Annexure P/7). -2. ' The Jndisputabie facts, in brief, as projected by the petitloner, are that pursuant to the communication dated 22/05/2000 an offer for aiiotment of ploVshop of size 10' X 12' Ft in Chhattisgarh Sabji Mandi, Ruabandha Sector on temporary license \¥BS made subject to severai conditions, inter aSia, deposit of a sum of Rs.14,584/- induding Rs.10,704/- for unauthorized occupation of the area in the past, Rs.2,880/- as one year advance iicense fee and Rs.1,000/- as security deposit. The petitloner has accordingiy paid the amount on instailments. The respondent company, subsequentiy by impugned order dated 30/12/2009, changed the ailotment of shops proposed in favour of the petltioner in an iliegal and arbitrary manner, which deserves to be auashed. 3. Per contra, Shri B.D. Guru, tearned counse! appearing for the respondent submits that it w^s not indicated that a partlcuiar shop would be aiiotted to a partlcular person, including the petitioner. 146 persons made applications /£?\ I ^^ 1 -^^^^^ 2 ^t 8. Arun for aiiotment of shops. Out of 146 persons, 76 persons opted for aliotment of shops on iottery basis (Annexure P/7). There Is no iilegaljty in ailotment of piot/shop on the basis of draw of lots. It was not mentioned about ths shop number in the receipt and even in the documents dated 22/05/2000 it was not mentioned about any shop nymberon the basis of which petitioner has instaiiment. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner further submlts that figure and certain documents indlcatlng 84 persons have opposed the system of draw of iots for aliotment. Ha.ving heard learned counsei appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is evldent that the petltloner along with others have made payment by instaliments, pursuant to the offer for aiiotment of piot/shop on temporaiy ilcense basis. Case of the petltloner is that in the rQceipt of payment, the shop number was mentloned. On the basis of rnere mentioning of a number In the receipt, whlch did not find place in the communication 22/05/2000, the petitioner does not acquire any right to ailotment of a partlcular plot/shop. The proposal to ailot shop/plot on temporary basis and thereafter, the deposit of amount on instaliments does not give any right in favour ofthe petitionerto be aiiotted a particular shop/plot. it Is well settled practice of aiiotment of piot/shop on lottery system i.e. draw of lots. This practice is being foliowed in order to avoid favoritism, discrimlnation, nepotism, etc, as dra^v of Sots takes place in presence of ail the persons. The system Is much more transparent than any other mode of aiiotment. Thus, the contention of the petitioner is bereft of merit. !n the resuit, the writ petition fails and Is hereby dlsmissed. No order as to costs. 1 Sd/- i SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1