BARIPADPA MUNICIPALITY vs KANAKALATA BEHURIA

THE complainant-respondent had filed the C.D. case alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Chairman and the Executive Officer of Baripada Municipality.

THE respondent is a lady entrepreneur running a readymade garment production and sale centre at Baripada. THE shop was registered with the D.I.C., Mayurbhanj as S.S.I. Unit. At first her sale centre was in Gujri Market, Baripada. THE above said space was selected for construction of permanent market building by the appellants to provide permanent shop rooms to the cabin keepers and to others giving preference to the persons running their shops by installing cabins thereon. As per the resolution of the Municipal Council, applications were invited from the interested shop-keepers. THE respondent was one of them. She deposited earnest money on 17.12.1997 to the tune of Rs. 2,520/-. THE appellants allotted her room bearing No. 38 which according to the complainant, is not suitable for running her business. THErefore, she applied to change the room, preferring room No. 21 which is at present used as office room of the market complex. THE respondent is claiming for allotment of room No. 21 in place of room No. 38 and also for exemption of rent of the said room until disposal of the case. The appellants in their written version stated their inability to allot room No. 21, instead of room No. 38. As per direction of the Hon''ble High Court lottery was conducted in presence of the Magistrate on 29.11.1997 and also in presence of the applicants, in which the complainant also took part and she was entitled to room No. 38. The respondent also accepted the room, but subsequently requested to change to room No. 21. The appellants are unable to exchange, because room No. 21 is the subject-matter of dispute in O.J.C. No. 9017 of 1998 pending before the Hon''ble High Court.

On perusal of records we find that the appellants are unable to allot room No. 21, instead of room No. 38, as room No. 21 is the subject-matter of dispute in a writ petition and also at present it is being occupied by the Municipality for its office. We direct the appellants to waive the rent as the respondent has not used the allotted room No. 38, and also direct the Chairman/Executive Officer to reconsider her case, if possible. The parties to bear their own costs. Appeal disposed of.