Municipal Corporation of Gwalior Vs. Harish Kumar
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1742 of 1994
Petitioner: Municipal Corporation of Gwalior
Respondent: Harish Kumar
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1742 of 1994
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 17, 2002
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Articles 226, 136 – Allotments of shop to be constructed at one site – Subsequently, said construction cancelled and new site chosen for construction of more shops – Allotment of shop in former site also cancelled – On writ, High Court directing the corporation to allot a shop at new site. On appeal, held that orders of High Court calls for no interference under Article 136. (Paras 3, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The municipal corporation of Gwalior has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.P. No. 927 of 1990, wherein the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and writ of mandamus was issued to the corporation to allot a shop to the respondent in pursuance of the allotment order issued in his favour.
3. The corporation by its resolution dated 26.5.1989 decided to construct twelve shop rooms in Daulatganj area of the city. In pursuance to the said resolution, an advertisement was issued for holding auction for settling the contract for construction of the shops. In the said auction, Smt. Shanti Devi Sharma was allotted the contract for construction of six out of the twelve shops. Thereafter, an auction was held on 2nd of July, 1989 for allotment of the shops. Pursuant to the auction one of the shop rooms was allotted to the respondent. Subsequently, by the resolution dated 8th of August, 1989, the highest bid offered by the respondent was accepted and an allotment order was issued in his favour. Subsequent thereto, the corporation by its resolution dated 22.9.1989 decided to construct sixteen shop rooms instead of the twelve shop rooms at another site in the same Daulatganj area. By the order dated 31.5.1990, the respondent was communicated about cancellation of the allotment giving the reason that the twelve shop rooms initially planned were not being constructed and under a different project, sixteen shop rooms are to be constructed at a new site. The respondent filed the writ petition in the High Court seeking quashing of the communication dated 31st May, 1990 and for allotment of one of the sixteen shop rooms constructed at the new site.
4. Before the High Court, the stand taken by the corporation as it appears from the discussions in the judgment, was that the project for construction of the six or twelve shop rooms initially decided by the corporation having been cancelled, the allotment order issued in favour of respondent was of no avail and, therefore, it was rightly cancelled. The further case of the corporation was that the respondent has no right to claim any one of the sixteen shop rooms which were constructed under a different project and at a different site.
5. The High Court, on consideration of the matter did not accept the contention raised on behalf of the corporation and held that cancellation of the allotment order issued in favour of the respondent was arbitrary and without any acceptable basis. The High Court took the view that cancellation of the resolution for construction of the twelve shop rooms might have led to cancellation of the construction contract in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi Sharma, but it could not be said that thereby the allotment order issued in favour of the respondent stood, annulled. Therefore, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution directed appellant-corporation to allot one of the shop rooms situated in Daulatganj area to the respondent as per the terms of auction notice.
6. On perusal of the judgment under challenge and on consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are not satisfied that the judgment of the High Court calls for interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The municipal corporation of Gwalior has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.P. No. 927 of 1990, wherein the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and writ of mandamus was issued to the corporation to allot a shop to the respondent in pursuance of the allotment order issued in his favour.
3. The corporation by its resolution dated 26.5.1989 decided to construct twelve shop rooms in Daulatganj area of the city. In pursuance to the said resolution, an advertisement was issued for holding auction for settling the contract for construction of the shops. In the said auction, Smt. Shanti Devi Sharma was allotted the contract for construction of six out of the twelve shops. Thereafter, an auction was held on 2nd of July, 1989 for allotment of the shops. Pursuant to the auction one of the shop rooms was allotted to the respondent. Subsequently, by the resolution dated 8th of August, 1989, the highest bid offered by the respondent was accepted and an allotment order was issued in his favour. Subsequent thereto, the corporation by its resolution dated 22.9.1989 decided to construct sixteen shop rooms instead of the twelve shop rooms at another site in the same Daulatganj area. By the order dated 31.5.1990, the respondent was communicated about cancellation of the allotment giving the reason that the twelve shop rooms initially planned were not being constructed and under a different project, sixteen shop rooms are to be constructed at a new site. The respondent filed the writ petition in the High Court seeking quashing of the communication dated 31st May, 1990 and for allotment of one of the sixteen shop rooms constructed at the new site.
4. Before the High Court, the stand taken by the corporation as it appears from the discussions in the judgment, was that the project for construction of the six or twelve shop rooms initially decided by the corporation having been cancelled, the allotment order issued in favour of respondent was of no avail and, therefore, it was rightly cancelled. The further case of the corporation was that the respondent has no right to claim any one of the sixteen shop rooms which were constructed under a different project and at a different site.
5. The High Court, on consideration of the matter did not accept the contention raised on behalf of the corporation and held that cancellation of the allotment order issued in favour of the respondent was arbitrary and without any acceptable basis. The High Court took the view that cancellation of the resolution for construction of the twelve shop rooms might have led to cancellation of the construction contract in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi Sharma, but it could not be said that thereby the allotment order issued in favour of the respondent stood, annulled. Therefore, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution directed appellant-corporation to allot one of the shop rooms situated in Daulatganj area to the respondent as per the terms of auction notice.
6. On perusal of the judgment under challenge and on consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are not satisfied that the judgment of the High Court calls for interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs.
