Amarendra Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the petitioner has sought for a direction upon the respondents to allot shop no.6 situated at the Municipal Library in the name of the petitioner on the ground that he is running the aforesaid shop since long.

It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he is not the allottee of the shop, rather, the shop has been subleted in his favour by the original allottee but the period of lease of the original allottee has since been expired, hence the petitioner has handed over the keys of the shop with an application for consideration for allotment of the shop in his favour.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the shop has been allotted in favour of one Gyan Shahi as has been stated at para 16 of the writ petition which according to the petitioner is not proper since the petitioner being a handicapped person and is running the shop since long, priority ought to have been given by the respondents in allotment of the said shop.

Mr. Avishek Prasad, learned A.C. to S.C.-V appearing for the State has submitted that the petitioner has got no right to claim the allotment of the said shop since the said shop has never been allotted in his favour, rather, he was tenant of the original allottee and after expiry of the lease in favour of the original allottee, the petitioner has got no right to remain in the said premises. He further submits that since the shop has been allotted in favour of one Gyan Shahi and in that respect also the petitioner has got no case. Furthermore, the order of allotment made in favour of Gyan Shahi has not been assailed and the said Gyan Shahi has also not been impleaded as party.

This Court, after appreciating the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties, has found from the pleadings made in the writ petition that the admitted fact of the case of the petitioner is that the shop in question has never been allotted in his favour, rather, he is claiming allotment of the said shop by virtue of the fact that he was in occupation by way of tenant by the original allottee namely Kaushal Kishor Roy.

The allotment of the shop by virtue of the expiry of the lease has expired in the month of April, 2018 and therefore, the petitioner has got no right to remain in possession of the said shop.

Further, after expiry of the period of lease, the authorities have resorted to the process, in pursuant thereto the allotment of shop has been made in favour of one Gyan Shahi.

The petitioner has simply prayed in this writ petition for allotment of the said shop on the ground that he is handicapped and running a shop in the said premises since long, but merely because the petitioner is handicapped, no sympathy can be shown by this Court ignoring the process of allotment of the shop. The order of allotment is also not under challenge as also the new allottee has not been made as party.

In view thereof and entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in this writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.