Jharkhand High Court
Rajendra Prasad Keshri vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 September, 2018
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 5210 of 2017
With
W.P. (C) No. 5216 of 2017
With
W.P. (C) No. 5215 of 2017
With
W.P. (C) No. 5217 of 2017
With
W.P. (C) No. 5222 of 2017
Rajendra Prasad Keshri ... ... Petitioner [WPC No. 5210/17]
Meena Bishwash ... ... Petitioner [WPC No. 5216/17]
Deepak Kumar Bishwash ... ... Petitioner [WPC No. 5215/17]
Ashok Kumar Jha ... ... Petitioner [WPC No. 5217/17]
Ajay Kumar Das ... ... Petitioner [WPC No. 5222/17]
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar
3. The Municipal Commissioner, Deoghar Municipal Corporation,
Deoghar
4. The Special Officer, Deoghar Municipal Corporation, Deoghar
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Deoghar Municipal Corporation,
Deoghar
6. The Executive Engineer, Deoghar Municipal Corporation, Deoghar
7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar ... ... Respondents
[In all the writ petitions]
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. LCN Shahdeo, GP-IV Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, AC to GP-IV For Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 : Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, Advocate
-----
Order No. 05 Dated: 25.09.2018 The defects as pointed out by the office in W.P.(C) No. 5210 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No. 5216 of 2017 are ignored.
The present batch of writ petitions have been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents not to evict the petitioners from their respective premises/shops situated in "Gandhi Vachnalaya", near Tower Chowk, in front of Deoghar Sadar Hospital, Deoghar.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the premises/shops in "Gandhi Vachnalaya" were let out to them by the respondent- Deoghar Municipal Corporation, Deoghar by way of lease-deed which were 2 continued to be renewed from time to time. Despite having valid lease of the premises/shops in question, the petitioners have been asked to vacate their premises/shops in "Gandhi Vachnalaya". If the petitioners are evicted from their respective premises/shops, they will lose their business and livelihood.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent-Deoghar Municipal Corporation on instruction submits that the petitioners have already been evicted from the premises/shops in "Gandhi Vachnalaya" and the building of the same being in dilapidated condition has now been demolished.
4. Since the prayer made in the writ petitions is primarily for restraining the respondents from evicting the petitioners from their respective premises/shops in "Gandhi Vachnalaya" which has now been demolished, no order need be passed in that regard. However, the issue with regard to the grant/allotment of alternative premises/shops to the petitioners still subsists.
5. In the case of "Deoghar District Congress Committee Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors." reported in 2018 (3) JBCJ 73, this Court, vide order dated 14.03.2018 while dealing with the issue of demolition of the "Gandhi Vachnalaya" building, has observed as under:
"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to get the existing occupancy in the building (Gandhi Vachnalaya), Deoghar properly vacated before taking any steps for demolition of the same. It is open to the petitioner to approach the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to get an alternative premises for running its office. Similarly, other occupants/tenants of the said building, who are carrying out respective businesses over a period of time, may also approach the said authorities for grant/allotment of alternative premises, which shall also be considered by the said authorities keeping in view the relevant policy of the District Administration and the Municipal Corporation, Deoghar as well as the fact that the petitioner and other tenants/shopkeepers have been in occupation of the said building i.e., Gandhi Vachnalaya for their respective purposes over a period of time."
6. On perusal of the aforesaid observation made by this 3 Court in the case of "Deoghar District Congress Committee"
(supra), it would appear that the petitioner of the said case as well as the other tenants/shopkeepers of the said building were given liberty to approach the district authorities/Deoghar Municipal Corporation for allotment of alternative premises and on being approached, the said authorities were directed to consider their request keeping in view the relevant policies of the district administration and Deoghar Municipal Corporation as well as the fact that the petitioner of the said case and other tenants/shopkeepers have been in occupation of the said building i.e., "Gandhi Vachnalaya" over a period of time.
7. The learned counsel for the Deoghar Municipal Corporation has produced a copy of the letter contained in memo no. 2854 dated 12.09.2018, whereby the respondent no. 3 - the Municipal Commissioner, Deoghar Municipal Corporation, Deoghar has informed the petitioners that 5 (five) shops situated inside old Meena Bazar Bus Stand can be allotted to them. It has also been informed inter alia that some more places have been identified for being developed as vending zone, the proposal of which is pending and if the petitioners want to carry on their respective businesses at the said places, they may inform the City Manager.
8. Thus, it appears that the respondent no. 3 has taken steps for providing alternative premises/shops to the petitioners after their eviction from "Gandhi Vachnalaya". However, considering the fact that the petitioners have lost their respective businesses which were their source of livelihood, the petitioners are given liberty to approach the respondent no. 3 providing their options for allotment of the premises/shops by filing appropriate applications. On receipt of the said applications, the respondent no. 3 shall take due steps for allotment of premises/shops to the petitioners without any unreasonable delay, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said applications. If it is found by the respondent no. 3 that there is no legal impediment to allot the specific premises/shops requested by the petitioners, the allotment order after completing the required formalities shall be issued within the aforesaid period. However, if it is found that the petitioners' options for the 4 allotment of premises/shops are not legally acceptable, the offer for allotment of alternative premises/shops shall be given by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioners and the steps shall be taken for such allotment keeping in view the business interest of the petitioners and that they have lost their respective businesses due to demolition of "Gandhi Vachnalaya" building. It is also observed that if alternative premises/shops to be allotted to the petitioners are found in bad shape, the renovation of the same shall be done expeditiously at the cost of the Deoghar Municipal Corporation.
9. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.
I.A. No. 6238 of 2018 [in W.P.(C) No. 5215 of 2017], I.A. No. 6241 of 2018 [in W.P.(C) No. 5217 of 2017] and I.A. No. 6237 of 2018 [in W.P.(C) No. 5222 of 2017] also stand disposed of.
Copy of the letter contained in memo no. 2854 dated 12.09.2018 is taken on record.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish/N.A.F.R.