‘Hmg/upgb wRlf Pavia/d @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 176/2002 PETITIONER Vinod kumar Tulsyan, S/o Shri Bach Raj ’I‘ulsyan, aged about 39 years, R/o Village Belgahna, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, C.G. ’ L VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Municipal Corporation Bilaspur , , through the Commissioner, District Bilaspur, C.G. 2. Commissioner Cum Chairman, Bilaspur Development Authority, Office at Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Bilaspur Development Authority, Office at Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT/AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/ CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTIONJORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. MAY THIS PLEASE TO YOUR LORDSHIP, /Q’K\ ’ ) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR _ 4 / WRIT PETlTlON NO.176 OF 2002 (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of lndia) Single Bench : Hon‘ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate for the Municipal Corporation. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 18th day ofJune, 2010) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 25—9-2000 (Annexure — P/1) published by the respondent authorities, the petitioner made an application for allotment of plot specified in the advertisement. The petitioner also deposited the requisite amount of Rs.50,625/— on 26-9—2000 vide receipt book No.662 and receipt No.90, but no allotment was made in favour of the petitioner. 2. Thereafter, one more notice inviting applications for allotment of plots in the same area was published on 14-6-2002 (Annexure — P/7). The subsequent notice published on 14-6—2002 makes it clear that the allotment shall be made on the basis of ”first come first get”. Since the petitioner had already made an application pursuant to the, earlier advertisement dated \~ 25-9-2000, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered in the second notice for allotment of plots. Though the petitioner has not made any application after second notice dated 14-6-2002 to treat the application filed by the petitioner earlier, as application to the advertisement dated 14-6—2002. Thereafter, the money deposited by the petitioner for allotment \ Au; PETITIONER Vinod Kumar Tulsyan Versus RESPONDENTS Municipa! Corporation, Bilaspur & Others of plot was refunded to the petitioner without interest on 16-7—2009 (Annexure — P/8). Learned counsei submits that the respondent Corporation may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner either for allotment of piot or for grant interest at the market rate on the amount, which was lying with the respondent Corporation from 26-9-2000 to 16—7-2009. 3. At this juncture, Shri Kachhawaha, learned counsei appearing for the respondent Corporation, submits that the respondent Corporation may be given opportunity to consider the case of the petitioner either for allotment of plot, if available or for grant of interest on the amount deposited by him, if permissible under the provisions of law. 3 4. ln view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, according to learned counsel. appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. However, learned counsel prays that the respondent Corporation may be'directed to consider the case of the petitioner within the stipulated period. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the respondent Corporation is directed to consider the case of the petitioner accordingly, in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from today. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnih‘m'ii Judge /‘ f. r Gowri