Anamika Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand and others

and others (“the first petition”). (v) The first petition was decided

10.04.2018, in para 4 of its judgment, the Court observed “from the averments, it is absolutely clear that the petitioner was not even eligible for allotment of the shop as the shops were to be given only to those persons who were displaced during road widening process”. (vi) In fact, the petitioner had filed the first petition so as to claim that she should be charged less cost for the shop. (vii) The first petition was dismissed and the Court further observed that “in case no displaced person is available, remaining shops shall be allotted only by way of proper advertisement by inviting application from the general public and 4 the allotment shall be done in a fair and transparent manner.” (viii) For a long nothing had happened. It appears that the petitioner subsequently filed a representation dated 22.05.2024 and thereafter, filed WPMS No. 1862 of 2024 (“the second petition”) in this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 & 3 to decide the representation dated 22.05.2024 of petitioner by speaking and reasoned order sympathetically, so that the shop in question (shop no. 17) may be allotted in favour of petitioner on considerable rate of Rs. 51,975/- (ANNEXURE No.5 to this writ petition). ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent no.2 & 3 to charge the reasonable cost for allotment of shop at the rate of Rs. 51,975/- from petitioner, like as charged to other persons. (Annexure No.3 to this writ petition).” (ix) The second petition was decided on

09.07.2024. The Court in that order did take into consideration the judgment dated

10.04.2018 passed in the first petition. The second petition was decided observing that 5 the representation given by petitioner may be decided within six months. (x) The petitioner filed another representation dated 23.07.2024. (xi) On 29.10.2024, the Development Authority informed the petitioner to deposit cost of the i.e. 15,40,400/- and the interest Rs.19,40,000/- i.e. total 34,80,400. It has now been challenged in the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner could not be allotted the shop on time, therefore, interest should not be claimed from her.

4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from the Development Authority as to why for six years the shop was not allotted? The order in the first petition was passed on 10.04.2018. The second petition was filed in the year 2024 which was decided on 09.07.2024. For all those six years, what the Development Authority had done?

5. When learned counsel for the Development Authority was not able to respond these queries, on the request of this Court, Secretary of the Development Authority, joined the proceedings. He would tell the Court 6 that the shop in question could not be auctioned for those six years. He gave different reasons. (1) He said that there was a case pending in the Court. When the Court asked which case was pending? He referred to the second petition, but this explanation seems to be incorrect because the second petition itself was filed in the year 2024. Finally, he admits that it was a fault on the part of the Development Authority for not auctioning the shop for complete six years after decision of the Court in the first petition.

6. Be it as it may, the petitioner was not eligible in the category of displaced persons for the shop. Despite that she was allotted the shop on the recommendation made by the then Chief Minister. In the judgment dated 10.04.2018 of the first petition in para 4 this Court has recorded that the petitioner was not eligible for allotment and in para 5 last line of the judgment, the Court records that “but this does not give any right to the petitioner to claim allotment of a shop”. Almost after six years, the petitioner filed writ petition on the ground that she had given a representation to the Development Authority. It was still permitted to be decided by the Development Authority and it has been decided, by order dated 29.10.2024 of the Development Authority requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs.34,80,000/- with the Development Authority within a period of one month. The petitioner has not deposited that 7 amount. She has, in fact, forfeited the right to get the shop in allotment. In fact, the Development Authority ought to have allotted the shop by way of advertisement as has been directed by this Court in first petition on 10.04.2018.

7. The petitioner has no right. She has been filing successive petitions without any cause. She has been seeking the relief of allotment of the shop, at lower rate successively. The petitioner did not have any right to claim allotment of the shop as held by the Court on 10.04.2018, in the first petition. Despite that the petitioner was successful to get allotment of shop. But even she did not pay the requisite amount within stipulated time & again filed the instant petition. Instant petition definitely is a frivolous and vexatious petition. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs.

8. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.1 Lakh. The costs shall be deposited by the petitioner within three weeks. It shall be deposited with High Court Legal Services Committee. If it is not deposited, the Registry shall issue the recovery warrant for recovery of the amount of the costs as arrears of land revenue through Collector, Dehradun. Jitendra (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

20.02.2025