IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9252 of 2004 ASHOK KUMAR son of Shri Damdam Prasad alias Ramanup Prasad, R/o Benipati, P.S. Motihari, District Motihari …….Petitioner. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari, 3.The Additional Collector, East Champaran, Motihari 4.The Special Officer, Municipality , East Champaran, Motihari. 5.The Circle Officer, Sadar, East Champaran, Motihari ……Respondents. ----------- 3 08.04.2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this court by filing the preset writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction upon the respondents to allot a shop to the petitioner in the town of Motihari, for which he claims to have deposited Rs.39,400/- in the office of the Circle Officer, Sadar, East Champaran, Motihari (respondentno.5) 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No 2 to 5 wherein it has been stated that pursuant to direction issued by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 2290 of 1990 (Arun Kumar Mukherjee v State of Bihar & ors) an anti encroachment drive was started in the town of Motihari and during which shop of the petitioner was demolished. Subsequently, a market complex was constructed by Motihari Municipality and in that market complex, the petitioner was allotted a shop, but he 2 refused to take possession over the same and demanded that shop must be allotted to him at the previous place, where his shop was situated. Consequently the shop ear marked for the petitioner, was allotted to another displaced person and the petitioner was issued a notice to withdraw the money deposited by him. 4. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to the aforesaid counter affidavit, wherein he has denied the claim made on behalf of the respondents. 5. After hearing the parties and on consideration of materials available on record, this Court finds that there are certain disputes regarding factual aspect of the matter. There are affidavit and counter affidavit giving two version about allotment of the shop to the petitioner in the market complex constructed at Motihari town. 6. In view of the aforesaid disputed question of fact, no writ can be issued by this Court. Consequently, the writ petition has to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. 7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in future if some shops are constructed either by Motihari Municipality or by State of Bihar and its officials, then his claim may be considered sympathetically for allotment of a shop. This Court would like to observe that if shops are constructed in 3 Motihari town and petitioner makes an application for allotment of such shop fulfilling the other conditions stipulated therein, then his claim for allotment of such shop may be considered sympathetically, and if possible, by giving preference over other. In the meantime, if petitioner, so likes may withdraw the money deposited by him with the respondent no.5. Rahman/ (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)