Ram Swaroop Chowdhary vs Jammu Development Authority and Others

T.S. Doabia, J.—The petitioners in these petitions seeks a writ of mandamus against the Jammu Development Authority. They want an

allotment order vis-a-vis commercial shops to be issued in their favour.

Facts in OWP No. 602 of 1996 are as under:-

The petitioner's case for allotment of a shop was recommended by the concerned Minister. This is sought to be listed from Annexure-B. Earlier an

application was filed by the petitioner. This is Annexurc A. The respondent Jammu Development Authority, however, took a stand that allotment

of a shop is not possible. The reason for this finds mentioned in annexure.

The recommendation made by the concerned Minister was said to be not of any consequence as there was no discretionary quota available with

him. The Secretary in the Administrative Department however, insisted that allotment can be made out of discretionary quota. Copy of the

communication sent is Annexure E. After this a communication was addressed by the Jammu Development Authority to the petitioner; The

petitioner was informed that premium for the site would be Rs. 1.60 lakhs and fifty percent amount would have to be deposited. The petitioner ap-

pears to have deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/-only. This draft was not encashed as a petition 1 was pending in this Court. In this petition bearing

number 1031 of 1992 interim order was vacated. Another communication was addressed by the petitioner on 3rd April, 1995 to the Jammu

Development Authority. What led to the filing of this petition is issuance of a notice by which shops were sought to be disposed of by public

auction.

Facts in OWP 340 of 1996 are as under:

In response to an application submitted by the petitioner, the Jammu Development Authority expressed some intention to allot a site to the

petitioner. The words used in Annexure B are ""Jammu Development Authority would like to make allotment"" A sum of rupees seven thousand four

hundred were deposited with the Jammu Development Authority. Later on the amount deposited by the petitioner was refunded to him. This was

because the allotment was first to be made to those persons who were displaced from old Transport Nagar. Thereafter, left over plots were to be

disposed of by auction. This refusal led to the filing of this petition.

The respondents have filed objections. They have taken a stand that as per the policy the Jammu Development Authority has decided to allot

the shops to displaced persons and the case of petitioner did not fall in the category referred to above.

Facts in OWP 601 of 1996 are as under : The claim of the petitioner for allotment of shop site at Transport Nagar By-pass Jammu, stands

rejected by Jammu Development Authority. It is this action which has led the petitioner to approach this Court. He is seeking a writ of mandamus.

He wants allotment of a shop measuring 15' x 40' in the Transport Nagar referred to above.

The petitioner submits that in the year 1989 he had submitted an application to the then Hon'ble Minister for Housing and Urban Development.

For this he is placing reliance on a communication wherein, it stands mentioned that the Hon'ble Minister for Housing and Urban-Development

have given directions for allotment of a shop to the petitioner in the Fruit Mandi/Transport Nagar on terms and conditions as may have been

formulated by Jammu Development Authority. It is further stated by the petitioner that communication was addressed to the petitioner. This is

dated 24-12-1991. Copy of this is Annexure-B. The petitioner was directed to complete the formalities, so that his case could be processed. The

petitioner submitted his reply. Copy of this is Annexure-C. Further recommen-dation is said to have been made by under Secretary in the

Department of Housing and Urban Development. Copy of this has been placed on the record as Annexure-D. The petitioner submits that

notwithstanding the recommendations made from time to time, the resopondent-au-thorities have not taken any steps with a view to make

allotment of a shop in his favour. The petitioner further submits that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- represently 15% premium amount.

The petitioner further submits that he is unemployed and in this capacity also he is entitled to allotment. As a matter of facts as per the petitioner the

respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are legally bound to make allotment of the shop. The petitioner submits that in view of the order having been passed in

his favour by the concerned Minister, the same is required to be implemented. Non-implementation as indicated above has led the petitioner to

claim a writ of mandamus.

The responents have filed the objections. It is stated that only those persons who were engaged in transport business in old transport area could

be allotted shops. As per the respondents only those persons who were engaged in the business of Transport Companies, Booking Agents, Spare

Parts Dealers, Service Station, Workshops, Tyre Retreaders, Body Builders etc. are to be resettled in Transport Nagar. It is also stated that a

policy was framed and as per this policy only those persons who had temporary structure (Khokhas) at the old Transport Nagar were to be

accommodated. It is submitted that 487 shop sites of the sizes of 15' x 40' were created. Shop sites of the sizes of 12' x 15' were also developed.

The method and manner in which these sites have been allotted or are to be allotted has been given in para 4 of the objections. This data is as

under;-

15'x48' 15'x12'

Shop sites developed 487 754

Shop sites allotted to

eligible persons 320 615

Eligible persons who

are yet to be allotted

shop sites. 206 364

Shop sites allotted to

ineligible persons. 80 132

The respondents submit that the case of the petitioner falls in category No. 4. He has to stand in queue. He is ineligible for allotment because he

was not displaced from the old Transport Nagar. It is further staled that the petitioner is neither connected with the transport business nor he had

any khokhas/shop in the old Transport Nagar. It is under these circumstances, it is sub-milted that the petitioner cannot be given any allotment. It is

also stated that no mandamus can be issued with a view to make the allotment to the petitioner with regard lo the order passed by the concerned

Minister. It is submitted that their discretionary quota was not available with the Minister and therefore, it is not possible to accommodate the

petitioner.

There can be no dispute with the proposi- tion that the State and other Governmental agencies engaged in the task of developing the dues must

formulate some scheme for rehabilitation of the persons who are carrying their business in temporary structures but there is no fundamental right

exists in favour of such persons. The earlier decision on the point is found reported as Payare Lal v. New Delhi Municipality AIR 1967 Delhi 133 .

It be seen that all these persons who were displaced from the old Transport Nagar have since been rehabilitated. So far as their rehabilitation is

concerned, there is apparent logic behind it. They have been rehabilitated in terms of the decision given by the Supreme Court of India reported as

Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee AIR 1989 SC 1988 : 1989 ALJ 1097. No exception can be taken to the procedure so adopted.

So far as the allotment of plots/shops sites which remain vacant after adjusting the displaced persons is concerned the stand taken by the

respondent Jammu Development Authority is that these would be disposed of by public auction. No exception can be taken to the stand taken by

the respondent. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court of India in case reported as Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs. Union of India

(UOI) and Others, deprecated the practice of making allotment with out any rational. The relevant observations made are as under at page 3549

of AIR :

There is nothing on the record lo show that any other method of inviting applications was adopted. There is no indication in the allotment orders or

any where in the record to show that the Minister kept any guidelines in view while making these allotments. The allotments have been made in a

cloistered manner. The petrol pumps-public property have been doled out in a wholly arbitrary manner. This Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs.

International Airport Authority of India and Others, held as under :

It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whelher by way of giving jobs or entering into

contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largesse, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and like a private

individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant.

The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesse including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, licences etc. must be

confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norm

in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down....

The allotments have been made by the Minister either on the ground of poverty or unemployment, assuming that the allottees belong to either of

these two categories then how the Minister has selected them out of millions of poor and unemployed in this Country. As mentioned above no

criteria was fixed, no guidelines were kept in view.

Similar view was expressed in case reported as Common Cause, A Regd. Society Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and also in cases

reported as Shiv Sagar Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others, and also in case reported as Shiv Sagar Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others, .

In view of the above pronouncements, it cannot be said that the decision of the Jammu Development Authority to dispose of the shops py way

of auction is in any way contrary to law. It rightly formed an opinion that there is no discretionary quota available with the concerned Minister. The

net result is :

(i) That the Jammu Development Authority was right in formulating the policy which was to the effect that allotment would first be made to those

persons who have been displaced from the old Transport Nagar.

(ii) The further decision taken by the Jammu Development Authority that the remaining shops would be disposed of by way of public auction is a

decision which is in consonance with the decisions given by the Supreme Court noted above :

(iii) That the decision taken to do away with the allotment through discretionary quota is again in consonance with the law laid down by the

Supreme Court of India.

As such these petitions are found to be without merit. These are dismissed with no order as to the costs.