Weekly Sunday Market Welfare Society vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Shakti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand-respondent

nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 & 6.

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the Weekly Sunday Market Welfare Society seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notice

issued by fifth respondent dated 29.06.2018; and for a mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to run the Sunday market at the

same place (Lansdowne Chowk in front of Tibetan market) as it used to run in the past.

The Municipal Corporation, Dehradun Nagar Nigam has, in its counter affidavit, stated that, by order dated 03.12.2015, the weekly market, which

was existing from Ghantaghar to Paltan Bazaar, was shifted in front of the Tibetian market, from Convent School to Dr. Manoj Nursing Home, on the

direction of this Court in WPPIL No. 283 of 2004 dated 16.04.2004; an undertaking was furnished by the petitioner society, in their letter dated

03.12.2005, to leave a 30 meter place on both sides of the road to enable devotees to pray in the Church; pursuant to the order, passed in WPPIL No.

47 of 2013 dated 18.06.2018, the Weekly Sunday Market was removed; the Society thereafter filed in Writ Petition No. 2407 of 2018 and this Court

had, by its order dated 10.08.2018, directed the authority to consider their representation for providing an alternative place for vending; in compliance

with the order passed by this Court, an alternate place for vending was given by the Nagar Nigam at Shastradhara Road on the north of Him Jyoti

School; the said land was temporarily allotted as a Weekly Sunday Market on 15.02.2019; and these facts have not been disclosed in the writ petition.

Enclosed to the counter affidavit is a copy of the order passed in WPMS No. 2407 of 2018 dated 10.08.2018 which records that the said Writ

Petition was filed by the Saptahik Ravivar Bazar Kalyan Samiti through its President. In terms of the said order, the petitioner-society was permitted

to make a representation to the respondent-authorities requesting them to provide an alternate place for vending. This Court had observed that, in case

any such representation is made, the same shall be decided in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, by proceedings dated 15.02.2019, the

respondent officials have allotted a different place for vending to the Saptahik Ravivar Bazar Kalyan Samiti.

The present writ petition has also been filed by Saptahik Ravivar Kalyan Samiti through its President. The petitioner now seeks allotment of another

piece of land contending that it is they, and not the petitioner in WPMS No. 2407 of 2018, which is a genuine society; and allotment of land to a bogus

society would not justify the petitioner being denied allotment of land for the purposes of a Weekly Bazar. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner, both in

WPMS No. 2407 of 2018 and in WPMS No. 2327 of 2019, is the Saptahik Ravivar Kalyan Samiti through its President. The land was allotted to the

Samiti pursuant to the order of this Court in WPMS No. 2407 of 2018 dated 10.08.2018. The contention, now urged before us, is that the petitioner in

WPMS No. 2327 of 2019, and not the petitioner in WPMS No. 2407 of 2018, is the genuine Society registered as the Saptahik Ravivar Kalyan Samiti.

Disputes regarding the genuineness of both the Societies, and whether the land for the Weekly market was allotted to a bogus Society, are all matters

for the Nagar Nigam to examine, and take a decision thereupon in accordance with law.

Suffice it, instead of keeping the writ petition pending on file of this Court and adjudicating which of these two societies is a genuine society, to

permit the petitioner to make a representation to respondent Nos. 2 & 5 who shall examine the matter, and take appropriate action in accordance with

law within two months from the date of receipt of such a representation.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.