Adarsh Sood and Others vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

(i) That the writ petition, in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents, directing the respondents to hand over the possession and allot to petitioner No. 1 two shops i.e. Shop No. 12 and Shop No. 13 on the ground floor and also to petitioner No. 2 Shop No. 10 and shop No. 11 on the ground floor itself, which are lying vacant and have not been handed over to the petitioners despite the allotment and the money being tendered.

In the preliminary submissions of the reply, it is stated as follows:

That it is submitted that the Respondent Department had received a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac each from the both of the Petitioners for the allotment of 2 Nos. of shops to each of the Petitioner in the shopping complex of the Industries Department at Barotiwala. Subsequently the case for the allotment of shops was taken up with the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Director of Industries for obtaining approval of the govt. and the approval of the Govt. was received from the Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 26.3.2010. In between the other Khokha holders named Shri Kewal Singh, Jagmohan and Darshan Singh filed a plaint on 6.3.2010 before the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Kasauli District Solan (HP) for allotment of shops in the Ground Floor instead of allotment of shops made to them in the first floor in the shopping complex of Industries Department at Barotiwala and the Ld. Civil Judge directed to maintain status quo, qua possession of the shop in question vide its orders dated 26.3.2010 and the case is still pending adjudication before the Ld. Court and the next date of hearing is fixed for 27.9.2010 and as such the allotment could not be made to the petitioners. A copy of the order dated 26.3.2010 is annexed as Annexure R-1. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice.

That the matter being sub judice, hence the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the interim order in the Civil Suit is vacated and the Civil Suit itself has been dismissed on 27.9.2010. If that be so, there is no impediment in the allotment of the shops to the petitioners. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to take appropriate action in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel, as above within a period of one month from today. Needless to say that the interim order dated 25th August, 2010 passed by this Court will continue till such time.

The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.