AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. G.K. Vyas, J.
In this appeal filed by the appellant/writ-petitioner under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by learned
Single Judge in SBCWP No.2544/2015 is under challenge.Â
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that wife of the appellant applied for licence to rent a stall at RSRTC Depot, Phalodi and she was granted
licence for the period commencing from 12.03.2012 to 11.03.2015 and she was permitted to run the staff by the respondent- Corporation. When
term of the licence came to an end, the respondent No.2 issued another Tender Notice for new allotment of the shops and invited applications. The
last date for submitting the application was 03.03.2015. The appellant, husband of previous licence holder applied for the licence and deposited earnest
money of Rs.10,000/- and participated in the tender proceedings for allotment of the shop.Â
In the proceedings of the allotment, nobody was allotted licence for the reasons best known to the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 vide
order dated 11.03.2015 declared that no proper licencee found, as such the period of previous licence holder is extended till further orders. Admittedly,
the bid in pursuance of tender was opened on 09.03.2015 and the highest bid of appellant being Rs.1600/- per month and he was the only person to
whom licence was to be given, however, the same was not granted by the respondent Corporation for the reasons best known to the respondent
Corporation.Â
The appellant sought information from the respondent No.2 in this regard under the RTI Act with regard to proceedings of issuance of licence qua
shop No.6, however, those information were not supplied to him. The appellant thereafter gave notice to the respondents and prayed that his Bid was
highest and as such licence be issued to him, else he will be constrained to take legal course against them.Â
As per contention of the appellant, the respondents again issued amended Tender for allotment of shop No.6, whereby the minimum rent was fixed as
Rs.2500/- per month. The appellant/writ-petitioner being aggrieved by the same preferred a writ petition (SBCWP No.2544/2015) and the writ petition
filed by him was disposed of vide impugned order dated 18.12.2017. While deciding the writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed that the rate
of rent offered by the petitioner for the shop in question was very low, therefore, the respondent Corporation asked him to increase the rent, which the
petitioner declined to increase and his bid was cancelled and amended NIT (Annex.7) has been issued. While observing the aforesaid finding, the
learned Single Judge granted liberty to the respondent Corporation to issue fresh NIT in accordance with law for allotment/granting of licence for
Shop No.6 situated at Central Bus Stand, Phalodi, District Jodhpur.  Learned counsel for the appellant submits that other shops situated in the
same area/vicinity were let out by the respondent Corporation upon the same rates, which was quoted by the appellant in his tender form, therefore,
the stand taken by the respondents that the rate offered by the petitioner rent shop No.6 was very low, therefore, he was asked to increase the rate,
which he refused and amended NIT was issued. But this fact is not correct because the rent of other shops of the same dimensions/ measurement
were rented out by the Corporation in the same, which is offered by the appellant. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that still he is
ready to increase the rent, therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent Corporation to allot the shop in question upon reasonable rent.Â
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent- RSRTC submitted that rent of shop of the area is more than Rs.2500/- per
month, therefore, fresh NIT was issued because the appellant refused to increase the rent.
We have also perused the communication dated 25.01.2016, according to which other shops of the same dimensions/measurement, the rent was less
than Rs.2000/-. After considering the entire facts of the case and the fact that the respondents themselves issued amended NIT showing rent of
Rs.2500/- and rate offered by the appellant is Rs.1680/-, and he is ready to increase the rent, therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it
appropriate to accept the prayer of the appellant for allotment of shop No.6 measuring 8’ x 10’ upon rent of Rs.2000/-.Â
 Consequently, the instant special appeal is disposed of with a direction to the respondent- Corporation to allot Shop No.6 to the appellant upon rent
of Rs.2000/- because other shops of the same dimension/measurement in the same area, were let out for the rent less than Rs.2000/-.Â