Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/1651/2007 of HANS RAJ Vs STATE on 27 December 2007
of 2007. 27.12.2007 Present: Ms. Bindiya Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Chandel, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate with Mr. Lalit Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.3. On this matter coming up
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
CWP No. 1651 of 2007.
27.12.2007 Present:
Ms. Bindiya Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Chandel, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2.
Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate with Mr. Lalit Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.3.
On this matter coming up for consideration, Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2 has stated before us that the period for which the allotment of the shop in question was made in favour of respondent No.3, as per the latest extension/renewal granted in his favour by respondent No. 2 is going to expire on 25[th] February, 2008. Mr. Verma, further stated before us that no further extension with respect to the allotment shall be made or granted in favour of respondent No. 3 beyond 25[th] February, 2008 and that as on 26[th]February, 2008, the vacant possession of the shop shall be taken over from respondent No. 3 by respondents No. 1 & 2 and that well before 25[th]February, 2008, steps shall be taken by these two respondents to allot the shop afresh to a new allottee by observing all codal formalities.
Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits and states before us that his client would not seek any further extension for the allotment of the shop in his favour beyond 25[th] February, 2008 and as undertaken by Mr. J.K. Verma, respondent No.3 would himself vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the shop to respondents No.1 & 2 by or before 25[th] February, 2008.
The aforesaid undertakings given to this Court by learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2 on one hand and respondent No.3 on the other hand are hereby recorded.
Because of the aforesaid undertakings and statements made, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Before parting, we, on our part, do wish to observe and direct that while processing the case for fresh allotment of the shop beyond 25[th]February, 2008, respondents No. 1 & 2 shall ensure that terms and conditions of allotment are formulated in such a manner that, apart from fetching the highest rent, sufficiently long period of tenancy/lease/licence is granted in favour of the successful person because in our considered opinion, unduly short period of licence/lease/tenancy, say 11 months in the first instance and just one more extension of 11 months, is most likely to discourage the prospective bidders. Sufficiently long period, say 3 to 5 years, apart from encouraging the prospective bidders shall also, infuse in them a sense of stability as well as security.
(V.K. Gupta), C.J.
December 27, 2007. (rc)
(Sanjay Karol), J.