Lakhan Singh son of late Firangi Singh vs The State of Bihar

The present writ petition has been filed for the following

reliefs --

"(i) For quashing the order contained in memo no. 2003 dated 31.12.2016 issued by respondent no. 2 whereby and whereunder the shop no. 114 situated in front of Thai Temple Bodhgaya allotted to the petitioner in the year 1999 has been cancelled.

(ii) For quashing the allotment of the shop no. 114 made in favour of respondent no. 3 which has illegally been made in violation of procedure prescribed under law for allotment of shop to any person.

(iii) For grant of stay of order impugned till disposal of the writ petition.

(iv) Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

cancellation of allotment of the shop of the petitioner is arbitrary and

illegal and without following the principles of natural justice. The

agreement between the parties (Annexure-1) thus contemplated vide

Clause 15 hereof that the cancellation could be made pursuant to a

show cause notice. In the instant case, however, no show cause notice

whatsoever was served upon the petitioner prior to passing of the

impugned order of cancellation and he only came to know about the

cancellation order through newspaper published on 12.03.2017. It is

stated that the alleged violation of Clause 7 of the agreement with

regard to sale of the shop by the petitioner to a third party has not

been supported by any material nor the petitioner confronted in this

regard. It is further submitted that the concerned shop has since been

allotted in favour of the respondent no. 3 who happens to be none

other than the husband of the Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat,

Bodhgaya.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Nagar Panchayat

appears and has been heard. He relies on the counter affidavit to

submit that the petitioner had sold the shop to the respondent no. 3

and hence violated Clause 7 of the agreement attracting the

cancellation of the shop.

Despite appearance having been entered on behalf of

the respondent no. 3 and an opportunity having been granted for filing

counter affidavit by order dated 11.08.2017, however, neither

respondent no. 3 is represented when the matter is called nor any

counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on

careful consideration of the materials available on record, this Court

finds merit in the writ petition. The agreement itself contemplated a

show cause notice to be issued prior to cancellation of allotment of the

shop which has, in the present case, clearly not been issued. A general

public notice cannot be said to be sufficient compliance of the

principles of natural justice in such a case more so when specific

nature of the allegation has also not been made known to the petitioner

nor any materials were made available to the petitioner to enable him

to furnish a suitable reply in that regard. The respondents have not

brought any material on record even before this Court to show that the

petitioner had sold the shop to respondent no. 3. This Court is

therefore of the view that the allotment of the shop of the petitioner

has been cancelled in violation of the principles of natural justice and

cannot be sustained. The impugned order contained in Memo No. 2003

dated 31.12.2016 (Annexure-4) is accordingly quashed. However, the

respondents shall be at liberty to take fresh steps for cancellation of

allotment of shop, if so advised, after issuance of proper show cause

notice to the petitioner, in accordance law.

The writ petition stands allowed as above.