Bodhi Prakash Bachkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr.Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant on I.A.No.01 of 2023, which is an application for condonation of delay of 17 days in preferring the connected appeal against the order dated 07.12.202  passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.5353 of 2022. Also heard Mr.Vikram Shrama, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No.1 and 2.

Upon hearing Mr.Dharmesh Shrivastava and Mr.Vikram Sharma, delay is condoned.

I.A.No.01 of 2023 stands disposed of.

The writ appeal is also taken up for consideration.

Shop No.43 situated at Naveen Bazar, Kawardha was allotted to the appellant on 07.11.2014 pursuant to an auction conducted. The appellant was required to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for the shop. Out of the aforesaid amount, 25% amount was required to be deposited within 7 days and the balance amount was to be paid within a period of 30 days. The appellant deposited 25% of the total amount within 7 days. However, the rest of the amount was not paid.

A Public Interest Litigation being WPPIL No.71 of 2017 (Santosh Namdev v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) was filed, in which the present appellant was respondent No.22. While disposing of the said petition by an order dated 08.11.2017, it was observed at paragraphs 2 and 3 as follows:-

“2. Today, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the official respondents have taken action and had sealed the shop rooms or have evicted certain persons by cancelling their licences. The private respondents have entered appearances. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents point out that arbitrary exercise of power was resorted to under the cover of pendency of this writ petition and some of the private respondents are deprived of possession not only of the shop rooms but also of the goods stored in the said shop rooms, which have been sealed. Suggestion is made on behalf of the private respondents that this matter be kept pending to enable the private respondents to ventilate their grievances. It is also pointed out that some of the private respondents have already instituted independent writ petitions or have sought relief otherwise.

This writ petition is yet to be admitted. No interim order is granted by this Court. In this Public Interest Litigation, no further relief is called for having regard to the situation pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is also not necessary to keep this matter pending to adjudicate any grievance which the private respondents have against the purported action taken by the official respondents either in terms of the statutory powers or otherwise. All that we need to clarify is that the institution and pendency of this writ petition would not, by itself, be decisive either against or in favour of the private respondents and all grievances of the private respondents in the litigation which they have initiated or would initiate in relation to the alleged dispossession or cancellation of licences will be decided by the competent authority and this writ petition and this judgment being rendered thereon will not stand in the way of the parties raising all contentions in such proceedings in accordance with law. With such clarification, this writ petition is dismissed.”

The writ petition was filed on 19.11.2022, amongst others, assailing the order dated 21.09.2017, by which the shop of the appellant was cancelled along with forfeiture of amount deposited, as also a report dated 08.11.2019, wherein the steps taken in the matter of allotment of shop was delineated. Prayer was also made to direct the respondents authorities to hand over possession of Shop No.43 by enabling the appellant to deposit balance 3/4th amount.

The petitioner had filed a writ petition after more than 5 years of cancellation of allotment of shop and forfeiture of amount deposited. That apart, the petitioner had not deposited balance 3/4th amount though it was required to be deposited within one month from 07.11.2014.

Having regard to the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the considered opinion that no interference with the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is called for.

Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed.