Kuldeep Singh vs State And Others

Puneet Gupta, J

The petitioner claims to have khokha at Ware House, Nehru Market, Jammu and having business of second hand spare parts under the name and style of ‘K.S.Motor Parts’. The case of the petitioner is that his khokha got burnt in the fire accident on 08.03.1992 and was also demolished subsequently by the respondent-Jammu Development Authority for establishment of Bus Stand for Kathua route buses. His shop was also insured with the Insurance Company and the assessment of loss was made with regard to the shop. The petitioner claims to have made representations to the respondents for allotment of shop site at Transport Nagar, Narwal, Jammu as the other similar situated persons were provided the same benefit by the respondents but failed to get the requisite relief from the respondents.

The petitioner has challenged order dated 07.02.2009 whereby the claim of the petitioner for allotment of shop site in the Transport Nagar, Narwal, Jammu has been rejected. The petitioner has annexed the documents to plead that he had khokha at Nehru Market at the relevant point of time. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is that inspite of the fact that he had khokha at Nehru Market, Jammu and was required to be provided alternate site at Transport Nagar, Jammu yet he has been denied the benefit of the same by the respondents without any plausible reason.

The objections to the writ petition have been filed by the respondents wherein the respondents have submitted that the petitioner was required to file his case for allotment at Transport Nagar, Jammu before the Committee constituted for the said purpose but the petitioner failed to do the same. As per the reply, 396 applications were received qua the claims in pursuance to the notification issued for the same but the petitioner had not applied for allotment. The petitioner did not choose to file any application regarding his absence from the allottees for more than fifteen years and, therefore, the petitioner has no case on the ground of delay and latches. The respondents have denied of the facts pleaded by the petitioner regarding the burning of his Khokha or any compensation being assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. The case of the petitioner was considered but not found worthy of merit. The petition involves disputed questions of fact and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable is also the stand taken in the objections. The rejoinder to the objections more or less reiterate as to what is mentioned in the writ petition.

Mr. C.M.Koul, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has taken the court through the documents placed on record in order to impress upon the court that the petitioner had khokha which got burnt down due to fire and he had made request for allotment of shop at Narwal. The learned counsel has also tried to convince the court by making submission that the respondents have taken inconsistent stand when the note put up by the then Vice Chairman Jammu Development Authority is considered and what has been stated in the agenda whereby the case of the petitioner has been rejected. He has also stated that the Commissioner Secretary to Government, Finance Department, is not signatory to the agenda by virtue of which the case of the petitioner was rejected which prima facie shows that he was not convinced with the rejection of the case of the petitioner.

Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has vehemently argued that the case involves disputed questions of fact and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has in any case approached this court with his grievance after a long time of the finalization of allotment of shops at Transport Nagar, Jammu and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The case of the petitioner has been rejected by the Board after considering the same on merits.

The perusal of the documents filed with the petition shows that the petitioner appears to have requested for allotment of shop at Narwal, Jammu as it was demolished. This is evident from the purported communication dated 18.12.2004 from the petitioner to the Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority. It does not refer to the factum of the burning of the shop of the petitioner in a fire incident as mentioned in the writ petition. Thereafter as per the petition and the documents annexed with the same, the petitioner had approached the Minister of Housing and Urban Development Department in the year 2006 with a request for allotment of shop at Transport Nagar, Narwal Jammu. The petitioner has annexed the response given by the then Vice Chairman Jammu Development Authority in pursuance to the aforesaid request made by the petitioner to the concerned Minister in the year 2006. The note prepared by the Vice Chairman indicates that the petitioner had approached the Jammu Development Authority in December 2004 for allotment of shop at Narwal, Jammu. The note further details that the petitioner claims to have represented his case in the year 1992 as per the saying of the petitioner but no such record is available with the office. It is evident from what is pleaded by the petitioner is that the petitioner had slept over the matter for more than a decade after the alleged fire incident and also when the applications were sought from those conducting business at Ware House, Jammu for allotment of the shops at Transport Nagar, Jammu. Apparently, there is a huge delay on behalf of the petitioner to approach the court for redressal of his grievance or even before the authorities after the applications were invited for allotment of shops at Transport Nagar, Jammu. The argument of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner used to approach the authority for allotment of shop site at Transport Nagar during the aforesaid period also is not backed by any material and is conspicuously absent from the pleadings in the writ petition. The petitioner had indeed approached the court with his grievance after a long gap when he claims to have a case in his favour for allotment by the respondent-authorities. The petitioner cannot raise a plea that he waited for umpteen period before approaching the authorities or the court with his grievance. It is not in dispute that the allotment had been made long before the petitioner for the first time approached the authorities or the concerned Minister with his plea of allotment.

The petitioner has forcefully argued that the respondents were in know of the case of the petitioner in the year 1992 itself as he had made representation of his case is very much evident from the note/reply made by the then Vice Chairman Jammu Development Authority vide No. JDA/TPY/504 dated 20.03.2006 in response to the report sought by the concerned Minister. The court is of the view that the said communication/note from the Vice Chairman does not indicate what is argued on behalf of the petitioner. The reference to the misplacement of the record in the note is not from the department but only refers to what is claimed by the petitioner in his representation filed before the Development Authority and nothing more. The absence of record referred in the aforesaid communication does not mean misplacement of record as the same is only the assertion of the petitioner and not any admission of the department and, therefore, the petitioner cannot take any mileage out of the same. The impugned decision of the Jammu Development Authority whereby the case of the petitioner stands rejected is on the ground that the petitioner had not applied in response to the Notification issued by the Jammu Development Authority and his name did not figure in the list of applicants in response to the notification issued for allotment of shop at Narwal, Jammu. The court does not find the refusal of the case of the petitioner by the respondent-Authority on any flimsy ground but on merits.

Last but not the least, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that one of the members of the Committee is not signatory to the agenda which shows that the decision taken by the Committee was not backed by all the members. The argument is without substance as the absence of the signatures of one of the members in the agenda will not invalidate, in any case the decision taken by the Committee.

The plea of the petitioner that he had khokha at Ware House, Jammu and which got burnt is backed by the documents annexed with the petition is disputed by the respondents in their reply. Admittedly, the disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated upon by the court in the writ petition. The existence of the khokha of the petitioner and the damage caused to it in the fire is the disputed question of fact which cannot be otherwise gone into by the court in the present writ petition.

From the record and on the basis of discussion made above, it is held that the petitioner had approached the authorities for allotment of shop long after the applications were invited for the same and the allotments were finalized. The disputed questions of fact are raised in the writ petition which cannot be adjudicated upon by the court. The agenda by virtue of which the case of the petitioner has been rejected cannot be faulted with by the court for the reasons mentioned above.

The petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.