T BILASPU .I?.Noe£77g Iz / W/o Late Sahabddmi’ ; l A 0 o _ W Gd P nct —v ‘R () p PETIIONER T ' BusmIHah Begum hu Solank ged about 6 years R/ ard No 7 anai andana Dlst ajnandgaon CG The shop I ( n uestion was bullt te usand of th q by h h e P Lt Shhb , etitioner ae aauddin Solanki b r ut as he has expired the Petitione eing te Wife is in occupation of th b h e sho and is filing the present petitiOn) Versus ate of atisgar — hroug ecretary ancaya vam Grami ikash Viag, DKS Bawan Raiu (CG) Th Pht Gd — R hU ief E htV', Gandi Dstrict g( e Nagar ancaya, a’n‘ai; Districtw' ajanandgaon — Trogh its ”Ch xecutive Officer Na‘g‘arU'Pancaya a i Rainandao‘n3CG) .? PEN 6/227 OF T CONSTITUTION OF INDIA A R w; oos RESPONDENTS St Chhth Th the S Pht E n V bh h pr ‘34 TITIO UNDER ARTICLE 22 HE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Siggle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. W. P.NO.2678/2006 Petitioner Bisminah Begum Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and another (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution 'of India) w: Petitioner W. P.(C)NO.31 97/2007 Kishore Chhablani Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Respondents (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) Present: - W.P.No.2678l2006 Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents No.1. Shri Rahul Jha,‘ counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for interveners. w.P.(C)No.3197/2007 Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents No.1. Shri Rahul Jha, counsel for respondent No.2. Stiiil/ii/lahendra Dubey, counsel for respondent No.3. -__.L A ORAL ORDER (Passed on 08-03-2011) The aforesaid two writ petitions (W.P.No.2678 of 2006 and W.P.(C) No.3197 of 2007) are being disposed off by-a common order as common issue arise for consideration in these petitions. The petitioner in both the petitions have assailed the legality and validity of auction notice dated 12—05—2006 and action of the respondents, whereby the Nagar Panchayat has proceeded to auction the newly constructed shops including the shop No.5, which was earlier proposed to @ $ be allotted to the petitioner—Smt. Bismillah Begum (petitioner in W.P.No.2678 of 2006) and shop No.2 which was proposed to be allotted to Shri\ Kishore Chhablani (petitioner in W.P. (C) No.3197 of 2007). 2. In W;P. (C) No.3197 of 2007, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of order dated 21-09—2005 passed by the State Government, by which, the State Government cancelled the allotment of shops by the Nagar Panchayat, Gandai and further directed the Nagar Panchayat to make allotment as per rules. Both the petitioners in the present two writ petitions have approached this Court and challenged the aforesaid action and proceedings on the ground that the petitioners were running small shops in the market area of _ the Nagar Panchayat, Gandai since long, and in course of time, the Nagar Panchayat decided to construct new shops and the sites, which were being used by these petitioners to carry on their business in their stalls, were vacated and the Nagar Panchayat also resolved to settle the petitioners and other displaced persons, who were running their business in the area, where shop is proposed to be constructed. The petitioners vacated the site, on which, they were running their business. Later on, as per the resolutions of the Nagar Panchayat, it was proposed to allot sites by charging appropriate premium from the petitioners and ‘ pto‘ceedings were also drawn by issuing letters to the petitioners regarding allotment and part of premium was also deposited by the petitioners. In the meantime, the State Government passed an order on 21-09-2005, by which, the allotments and the proceedings were cancelled and the State Government directed to make allotment as per rules. As a consequence thereof, auction notices, which are challenged in this petition, Were issued by the Nagar Panchayat. W, r v s‘ -g- @ , 3. The issues raised in this petition have already been considered by this ‘ Court in an identical petition W.P.No.5999 of 2005 filed by the similarly situated businessmen, who were also subjected to the same action and legality and validity of order dated 21—09200?) passed by the State Government, was examined. This Court vide its order dated 07—03-2011 has allowed the said writ petition and has quashed the order dated 21-09—2005 passed by the State Government as also the auction notice, in respect of the shops, covered by auction notice in that case. a 4. l have examined the case of the petitioners in the aforesaid two writ . petitions. These two writ petitions are squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5999 of 2005. 5. However, learned counsel for intervenors in W.P.No.2678 of 2006 submits that pursuant to auction notice dated 12-05—2006 (Annexure P—7), and the interim order granted by this Court, which was later on modified on 25-04-2007 whereby the Court allowed the respondent— Nagar. Panchayat to proceed with the auction and allotment of remaining shops except shop No.5, the auction notice in the present case may not be cancelled. r 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 in W.P.(C) No.3197 of 2007 has also submitted that as the Court allowed the Nagar Panchayat to proceed with‘ ’ \ . me auction and allotment of the remaining shops vide order dated 25-04—2007, the auction notice dated 12-05-2006 and further proceedings of auction are not required to be cancelled, and the interest of the petitioners can be protected by cancelling the auction notice to the extent it concerns the shop No.2 propo‘sed to be allotted to theipetitioners. 2t RA? / 7. In Writ Petition No.5999 of 2005, order of the State Government dated 21-09-2005 has been set aside by this Court and liberty has been reserved to the State Government to consider the proposal sent by the Nagar Panchayat on 04—02-2005. As the auction notice in this case was aiso issued in compliance of the State Government’s order dated 21-09-2005, mere participation of the intervener in W.P.No.2678 of 2006 and respondent No.3 in W.P.(C)No.3197 of 2007, does not entitle them to enforce equity in their favour. The auction notice therefore has to be set aside notwithstanding that during the pendency of the. petition, auction proceedings were allowed to be proceeded and allotments were t) made in exercise of liberty granted under the interim orders. Hence, l am unable to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the lntervener in W.P.No.2678 of 2006 and respondent No.3 in W.P.(C)No.3197 of 2007, particularly when, no right crystallized in favour of such persons at the time of filing of the petition. 8. Accordingly, the aforesaid two writ petitions (W.P.No.2678 of 2006 and W.P.(C) No.3197 of 2007) are also allowed. The auction notice dated 12~05-2006 is also quashed. As order dated 21-09-2005 passed by the State Government has already been quashed by this Court in W.P.No.5999 of 2005, no further orders are required to be passed in that regard. No orders as to cost. l 4 l Sdl- x.v r Manindra Mohan Shrivastava: l Judge