Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PARMANAND RATHORE AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Parmanand Rathore And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 33552 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10757 (30 June 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 32

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33552 of 2006

Parmanand Rathore and another Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

~~~~~

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 2.5.2006 passed by the Vice Chairman of the Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the ''Development Authority') by which their representation has been rejected.

The petitioners, along with certain other shop keepers, had earlier filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 6865 of 1995 (Dev Narain Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was disposed of by this Court by means of the judgment and order dated 23.7.1996. The relevant portion of the order is quoted below:-

"Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the petitioners who have not complied with the condition in depositing Rs. 20,000/- in time, have not made out any case for allotment of land in their favour. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent that the petitioners who have complied with the condition in depositing Rs. 20,000/- may carry on their business in their shops. The petitioners who have not deposited Rs. 20,000/- their petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioners who have not deposited Rs. 20,000/- and have raised constructions are directed to shift their shops at another place."

Admittedly, the petitioners did not deposit the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and, therefore, in terms of the judgment and order dated 23.7.1996, they were required to shift their shops to another place.

The petitioners, however, filed a representation before the Development Authority that they should be allotted land/plot since the Development Authority was allotting plots in favour of certain persons who had also not deposited Rs. 20,000/- but as their representation was not decided, they filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 50571 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Court by means of the judgment and order dated 1.12.2004 directing the Authority to pass a reasoned order within three months. The representation filed by the petitioners has been rejected.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the Kanpur Development Authority and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners laid much emphasis on the fact that the Development Authority cannot be permitted to practice discrimination inasmuch as some allotments have been made to the shopkeepers who had not even deposited Rs. 20,000/- within the stipulated period. He, therefore, submitted that the representation filed by the petitioners should have been allowed and shops should have been allotted to them.

Sri Ramesh Upadhayaya, learned counsel appearing for the Development Authority, however, submitted that the petitioners are bound by the judgment and order dated 23.7.1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 6865 of 1995 in which they were petitioner Nos. 30 and 23 respectively. The petition filed by them was dismissed and it was specifically ordered that the petitioners, who have not deposited Rs. 20,000/-, should shift their shops to other places. He further submitted that the plea of discrimination cannot be raised by the petitioners as Article 14 of the Constitution provides only for positive equality and not negative equality and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered on 18.5.2005 in Writ Petition No. 40355 of 2005 in respect of the same allotments relating to canal road. The Court rejected the contention about discrimination holding that the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of Article 14 of the Constitution in such circumstances.

I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners did not deposit Rs. 20,000/- and, therefore, in terms of the judgment and order dated 23.7.1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 6865 of 1995 in which they were petitioners, the petitioners were bound to shift their shops to some other places. The representation has, therefore, rightly been rejected by the Development Authority. The plea of discrimination raised by the petitioners also does not have any force in view of the judgment of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 40355 of 2005 (Om Prakash Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and others). In the said judgment it has been clearly held that Article 14 of the Constitution provides only for positive equality and not negative equality and the petitioners cannot claim relief, which has wrongly been given to other persons.

There is, therefore, no force in the petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt/- 30.6.2006

Sharma


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.