CWP/3049/2018 on 30 December 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CWP No. 3049 of 2018

Date of decision: 30.12.2019 _____________________________________________________ Satya Devi

…..Petitioner

Versus Municipal Corporation, Shimla

…Respondent _______________________________________________________

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Naresh K. Gupta, Advocate.

L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice (Oral)

By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following main relief(s): “ (I) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued quashing notice dated 6.12.2018 (Annexure P-16).

(II) Mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondent to allot a viable stall to the petitioner as has already been recommended by the Committee and Joint Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, after making due enquiries, in the interest of law and justice.”

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that in the year 2008 she was allotted Stall No. 9 and one Jaspreet Singh was allotted Stall No. 10 by the respondent-Corporation. The further case 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

of the petitioner is that said Jaspreet Singh made unauthorized construction, which completely/virtually blocked the passage to the Stall of the petitioner, due to which the business of the petitioner has been badly affected. In this regard, the petitioner has made various representation(s) to the respondent-Corporation to change her Stall or allot her new Stall, but no action has been taken thereon till date. It is further averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was issued notice dated 06.12.2018 (Annexure P-16) by the respondent-Corporation, directing her to pay the due amount of rent to the tune of ` 2,38,625/-. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first prayer of the petitioner seeking quashing of notice dated 06.12.2018 (Annexure P-16) has become infructuous as the petitioner has paid the entire due amount of rent to the respondent- Corporation. His statement is taken on record.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that there is no other vacant Stall available at present, which can be allotted to the petitioner and if the petitioner points out a suitable Stall, the respondent-Corporation may consider her request for allotment of a Stall.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record carefully.

6. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the first prayer of the petitioner seeking quashing of notice dated 06.12.2018 (Annexure P-16) is rendered infructuous.

7. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner had made a request for allotment of a Shop/Stall to the respondent-Corporation, pursuant to which she was allotted Stall No. 9 and at the same time, one Jaspreet Singh was allotted Stall No.

10. If said Jaspreet Singh has raised unauthorized construction causing obstruction to the path of Stall No. 9 and affecting the business of the petitioner, the petitioner could seek a relief of damages against the person who has raised unauthorized construction affecting his business and or could seek any other relief against the respondent-Corporation, but she has no fundamental right to claim any other alternative Stall/Shop, but has a right to be considered for fresh allotment. Further, it was the duty of the respondent-Corporation to prevent Jaspreet Singh from raising unauthorized construction. In these circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner to allot her a viable stall is justifiable.

8. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondent, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition, directing the petitioner to find out a suitable Stall which can be allotted to her and if she succeeds in finding out a Stall, the respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for allotment of that Stall, strictly in accordance with the Municipal byelaws.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, as indicated above, alongwith pending application(s), if any.

(L. Narayana Swamy)

Chief Justice.

December 30, 2019

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) (hemlata)

Judge.