IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1563 of 2010 1. RAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI S/O SRI ASHOK KUMAR DWIVEDI R/O MOHALLA- SOHANI PATTI, TOWN & P.S.- BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 2. SANJAY KUMAR CHAUBEY S/O SRI HRISHIKESH CHAUBEY R/O MOHALLA- KAILASHPURI, TOWN, P.S. & DISTT.- BUXAR 3. PREM KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI BIRA SINGH R/O MOHALLA- RUP SAGAR, P.S. NAWANAGAR (BUXAR), DISTT.- BUXAR 4. BAIDYANATH SINGH S/O SRI NATHUN SINGH R/O DAFA DEHRI, P.S. SIKRAUL LAKH, DISTT.- BUXAR 5. SMT. SUSHILA MISHRA W/O SRI MURARI MISHRA R/O CENTRAL JAIL ROAD, TOWN, P.S. AND DISTT.- BUXAR 6. NAND KISHORE SINGH S/O SRI BHAGIRATHI SINGH R/O DAL SAGAR, P.S. BUXAR NOTIFIED AREA, DISTT.- BUXAR 7. VARUN KUMAR DUBEY S/O SRI KAPILDEO DUBEY R/O MOHALLA- CHARITRAVAN, P.O. , P.S. AND DISTT.- BUXAR 8. MANTI DEVI D/O SURENDRA PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- RUP SAGAR, P.S. NAWANAGAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 9. SOM NATH RAM 'ANOKHA' S/O SRI INDRAJEET RAM R/O DEODIHA, P.S. RAJPUR, DISTT.- BUXAR VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE NAGAR PARISHAD, BUXAR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BUXAR NAGAR PARISHAD, BUXAR 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BUXAR NAGAR PARISHAD, BUXAR ----------- 02 15.03.2010 The Buxar Municipality (now Nagar Parishad) wanted to construct a shopping area on Municipal land. Having no funds of it, it asked people to deposit cost of construction and those shops were allotted to the persons, who so paid. An agreement was entered into with those persons, whereby the rent having been fixed, it was decided and agreed upon that 50% of the rent would be adjusted from the money so advanced by the petitioners to the Municipality. Thus, rent originally having been fixed at Rs.480/-. - 2 - Petitioners were required to pay only Rs.240/- and the balance Rs.240/- was adjusted from the Rs.45,000/- paid by them from construction of the said shop. The agreement was for a period of 20 years. Clause-4 of the agreement gave power to the Municipality to fix rent at market rate. The initial occupation was given in the year 2003. Municipality now after 7 years has decided to enhance the rent by 50%. The effect would be that the same enhanced rent would be now required to be paid to the extent of 50% by the petitioners and the rest 50% would now be adjusted. Petitioners object and state that they had filed objections before the Municipality that enhancement was unreasonable and unjust, the Municipality is not considering the matter and is insisting as the enhancing as done. In my view, this is a matter of private contract between Municipality and the petitioners. If the petitioners have objected, it is for the Municipality to consider the objections, but it cannot unilaterally fixed rent by enhancing it. Petitioners have to pay rent and they have a right to object. The matter would have to be considered by the Municipality in the correct perspective and having considering the objection come to a decision in the matter taking into account all relevant factors for fixing the rent and that too on the ground that it is market rate. I, therefore, direct the Buxar Municipality to consider the representation of the petitioners and take decision in the matter within one month from today after hearing the parties. The - 3 - objection would be disposed of by a speaking order and would be communicated to the parties concerned, who if aggrieved by the order would be free to challenge them in accordance with law. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)