Naveen Gupta vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others

Mr. D.K.Khajuria, learned counsel appears for the caveator. Caveat stands discharged.

1 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 29.01.2020 passed by J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu (for short ‘the

Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Chairman, Notified Area Committee, Hiranagar and directed that the shop

in dispute shall be put to open auction as per the guidelines issued by the Housing and Urban Development Department vide its order No.70-

HUD/LSG of 1997 dated 27.03.1997 read with Government Order No. 271-HUD of 2003 dated 06.11.2003.

2 The order of the Tribunal has been challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner is an unemployed having no source of income except the

shop in question and respondent No.5 (appellant before the Tribunal) is a Government employee serving in PHE department.

3 Stated briefly, the facts of this case are that the shop in question was allotted in favour of respondent No.5 by the Municipal Committee, Hiranagar

in the year 1986. Since respondent No.5 was not interested in running the shop, he handed over its possession to the petitioner in the year 1999 and the

petitioner has been running the same w.e.f 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner applied before the Municipal authorities for allotment of the aforesaid shop

in his favour by transferring the same from the name of respondent No.5 in his name, in 2009. The Municipal Committee, after obtaining a report from

its officials, approved the transfer of the said shop in favour of the petitioner subject to payment of premium of Rs.20000/- and a revised rent of

Rs.360/- per month. However, no allotment was made in favour of the petitioner. The said transfer of shop has been challenged by respondent No.5

before the Tribunal on the ground that the Municipal Committee did not afford any opportunity of hearing to him before approving transfer of the

aforesaid shop to the petitioner herein.

4 The Tribunal after hearing the parties, vide order impugned, observed that the Municipal Committee, while transferring the shop in favour of the

petitioner has not adhered to the guidelines framed by the Government vide order No.70-HUD/LSG of 1997 dated 27.03.1997 read with Government

Order No. 271-HUD of 2003 dated 06.11.2003 and that the Municipal Committee has neither cancelled the allotment of shop in favour of respondent

No5, nor issued allotment order in favour of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the Tribunal directed that the shop in question shall be put to open

auction as per the guidelines aforesaid. It is this order which has been challenged before this Court by way of a petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution.

5 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6 Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce the guidelines issued by the Government vide its order dated 27.03.1997 read with

Government Order dated 06.11.2003 which read as under:

“All commercial assets of the municipalities and other local bodies shall always be dispose of through an open auction. The reserve price

for auction shall vary from place to place depending on the demand and the market situation. However, it shall not in any case be less than

50% above the market rateâ€​

7 It appears that the Municipal Committee while transferring the shop in question has not adhered to the guidelines aforesaid. That apart, it neither

cancelled the allotment of shop in question made in favour of respondent No.5, nor issued the allotment order in favour of the petitioner. In such

situation, neither the petitioner nor respondent No.5 can retain the possession of the aforesaid shop. The shop in question being a public property needs

to be put to open auction as per the guidelines aforesaid so as to fetch a good premium.

8 Having gone through the impugned order, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly held that the shop in

question be put to open auction as per the guidelines aforesaid.

9 Viewed thus, I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed along with connected CM.