AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Through the medium of instant writ petition, which has been filed in the year 2011, the petitioners pray for the following reliefs:
I) Certiorari, quashing thereby impugned communication letter bearing No.CEPS-LS-011/413 dated 03-06-2011 issued by
respondent No.3 contained as Annexure-K Supra.
II) Mandamus, commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to run their business of Tourist Car Parking without any
interference by the respondents.
III) Mandamus, commanding the respondents to compensate the petitioners for the losses suffered by them during the unrest of the
year 2010 in the Valley.
The first relief of certiorari, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners, has become infructuous as the learned counsel fairly states that the
petitioner has surrendered the parking lot to the Respondent authority and, hence, he has no cause to press the same. Therefore, the relief of
certiorari stands declined.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were originally granted a license by the respondents for running the parking lot in
the year 2010 for a period of one year and due to turbulence in the Valley as also the natural calamity like the devastating floods of 2014, the
petitioners suffered great financial losses as they could not run the parking lot and were unable to recover the fruits of the licence by way of
collecting the parking fee. Learned counsel states that by virtue of a Court order and request made by the petitioners, the respondent Authority
allowed them to operate the parking lot on certain terms and conditions and on payment of certain amount as rent. This, the petitioners, claim that
they have already paid but seek refund of certain amount as compensation for the losses suffered by them during the years 2010 and 2014 due to
circumstances beyond the control of the petitioners. This seems to be the sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioners.
Mr. Sajad Geelani, learned Dy.AG, states that the petitioners have been given more than the stipulated period of time for running the parking lot,
therefore, the Authority thought it fit to get back the property and based on a Court order, the respondents have taken possession of the aforesaid
property. Learned Dy. AG claims that some amount of rent is still outstanding from the petitioners. This is a disputed issue of fact.
Be that as it may, the request of the petitioners is that they should be granted certain waiver or refund for the financial losses suffered by them
during the period of turbulence as mentioned hereinabove.
In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to make a detailed representation with regard to
their grievance before the competent Authority enclosing a copy of this order within a period of four weeks. Upon such representation, the
respondents shall accord consideration to the claim of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in respect thereto, if the claim of the petitioners
is justified. If the petitioners are liable to pay some outstanding amount, then the Authority shall communicate the same to them in writing giving
details of the claim so as to enable the petitioners to respond to the same. The respondents shall be at liberty to take further action in this regard
purely in accordance with law.
With the aforementioned directions, the writ petition along with connected MP(s) stands disposed of. As a corollary, Review petition stands
closed. Interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated.