IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No. 2405 and 2430 of 2010. Decided on: 16th July, 2010. 1. CWP No.2405 of 2010. Gurcharan Singh vs. State of H.P. & ors. 2. CWP No. 2430 of 2010. Kuldeep Thakur vs. State of H.P. & ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) CWP No. 2405 of 2010 is filed with the following prayers: “(a) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction may be issued to the respondent No.1 for allotment of shop on the ground floor out of the six shops which are lying vacant i.e. shop Nos. 7 and 9 to 13 to the petitioner. (b) A writ of certiorari may be issued quashing the order of allotment of shop No.23 which is on the first floor of the complex. (c) That respondent No.1 may be asked to direct respondent No.2 to allot any shop on the ground floor out of six vacant shops i.e. shop Nos.7 and 9 to 13 in lieu of the originally allotted shop No.23 which has been allotted by respondent No.2.” 2 CWP No. 2430 of 2010 is filed with the following prayers: “(a) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction may be issued to the respondent No.1 for allotment of shop on the ground floor out of the six shops which are lying vacant i.e. shop Nos. 7 and 9 to 13 to the petitioner. (b) A writ of certiorari may be issued quashing the order of allotment of shop No.16 which is on the first floor of the complex. (c) That respondent No.1 may be asked to direct respondent No.2 to allot any shop on the ground floor out of six vacant shops i.e. shop Nos.7 and 9 to 13 in lieu of the originally allotted shop No.16 which has been allotted by respondent No.2.” 2. According to the petitioners in the nature of the business they carried on, namely, cycle repair, gas welding and scooter repair, the present allotment in the first floor will not at all be suitable for them to carry out their works. The learned Deputy Advocate General inviting reference to the replies submits that the petitioner had participated in the lottery for allotment. In case they did not get the shops of their choice in the ground floor, thereafter they turned around and contended that they should get the shops in the ground floor itself. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the petitioners are incapable of doing any other business since they are illiterate. In any case, it is submitted that there are shops vacant in the ground floor. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director (Industries) had in fact recommended their case for allotment of the shops in the ground floor as can be seen from Annexure P-6 3 and Annexure P-7 and the matter is now pending before the Commissioner Industries. 3. These writ petitions are hence disposed of directing the Commissioner Industries to take a decision taking note of Annexures P-6 and P-7 and also taking note of the fact that the shops are lying vacant in the ground floor and pass appropriate orders thereon, adverting to the recommendation made by the Deputy Director (Industries), as referred to above and communicated the same to the petitioners. This shall be done expeditiously. Till orders are passed by the Commissioner Industries, as above, the interim orders passed by this Court in both the writ petitions will continue. 4. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 16th July, 2010. ( Justice Rajiv Sharma), (tr) Judge.