Rakesh Sharma &
Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
J U D G M E N T
P. Sathasivam, J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
These
appeals are directed against the judgment and final order dated 18.01.2008 passed
by the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior
in Writ Petition Nos. 1873, 1878 and 2101 of 2003 and 310 of 1999 whereby the High
Court disposed of the writ petitions and issued various directions to the Municipal
Corporation, Gwalior in paragraph 8 of the impugned order for construction of a
market complex known as "New Gandhi Market Building".
3.
Brief
facts:
a. According to the appellants-shopkeepers,
after the partition of the country, in the year 1952, the Government
constructed Gandhi Market in Gwalior with 250 shops and allotted them to the appellants
herein, who were migrated to India from Pakistan at the time of partition, as
tenants/licensees. Each shop covers 60 sq.ft. space + 30 sq.ft. Verandah, in
total 90 sq.ft. area and has in front a 5 ft. wide footpath and then a public road.
In the year 1975, notice was issued by the Municipal Corporation of Gwalior to the
shopkeepers proposing to increase the rent from Rs.7/- to Rs.220/- per month. However,
on 18.03.1977, the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the Municipal Corporation,
Gwalior agreed to increase the rent only by 7% from the original rent and also clarified
that the enhanced rent would cover area in front of the shops and no additional
charges were to be paid in that respect. On 24.05.1994, the Municipal Corporation
passed Resolution No.40 by which, area of the shop was treated as 90 sq. ft.
including the verandah.
b. On 28.02.1999, a
public interest litigation petition, being Writ Petition No. 310 of 1999 was filed
by a lawyer, G.S. Tomar, against encroachment and erection of wooden stalls by
the Municipal Corporation over the land of the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board in Nazar
Bagh Market, which is described as "the heart of the city". By order dated
15.12.2000, the High Court directed that the said structures erected by the
Municipal Corporation would be removed. The petition was listed before the
Division Bench on various dates and several directions were issued by the High Court.
Thereafter, on 04.02.2003, the High Court directed the Municipal Corporation to
furnish information regarding the steps being taken to remove encroachments on
public streets. In May/June, 2003, the Municipal Corporation issued notices to
the appellants alleging that they were in illegal occupancy of the front portion
of their shops and directed them to remove the alleged encroachments with the threat
for demolition of offending construction, if any. Consequently, the shopkeepers
of Gandhi Market filed petitions before the High Court praying that they have
not made any encroachment of the Verandah. The shopkeepers of various markets also
filed writ petitions before the High Court. All the petitions were directed to be
listed along with Writ Petition No. 310 of 1999.
c. During the pendency of
the writ petitions, the High Court, by order dated 04.07.2003, appointed District
Judge (Vigilance) as a Local Commissioner in respect of the illegal
encroachments and constructions and directed the Municipal Corporation to continue
with the removal of encroachment from the footpaths and public streets which were
identified by the District Judge (Vigilance). It further directed that
objections, if any, would be submitted to the District Judge.
d. Against the order dated
04.07.2003, some of the shopkeepers of other markets filed Special Leave Petition
No. 12446 of 2003 before this Court wherein this Court issued notice and stayed
the demolition until further orders.
e. On 25.08.2003, the Local
Commissioner submitted his report before the High Court and the High Court
directed that it may not be open to the parties to raise any further objections
to the report. Against the said order, the appellants herein filed S.L.Ps.
before this Court which were directed to be tagged with the earlier S.L.P.(C) No.
12446 of 2003. This Court disposed of all the petitions on 25.10.2004 by
directing the High Court to dispose of the writ petitions as expeditiously as
possible after taking into consideration the objections of the appellants and
directed to maintain the status quo as on that date till the disposal of the
writ petitions.
f. On 19.01.2005, the High
Court directed the Municipal Corporation to submit a plan and map for development
of Gandhi Market as a shopping complex having first and second floor and a
parking area. As the appellants agreed to pay Rs.1 lakh each in four instalments
for construction of the first floor shops, the High Court further directed that
the amounts deposited by the shopkeepers would be kept in a separate fund by the
Corporation and its use would be considered at the time of final hearing.
g. On 08.07.2005, the High
Court directed that since the shopkeepers have not deposited the remaining three
instalments, they shall pay the same and clarified that in default, the Municipal
Corporation is at liberty to remove the shopkeepers who are not willing to deposit
their instalments. On 24.03.2006, the High Court further directed that the
Municipal Corporation shall auction the shops excluding verandah by an auction notice
for the Court to know the actual rental value and submit the price offered and the
valuation report of each shop. In pursuance of the said order, the Municipal
Corporation published notice but no one applied for the same.
h. Against the order dated
24.03.2006, the shopkeepers filed applications before the High Court for
recalling the order and for refund of the amount deposited by them with
interest and the same were dismissed by the High Court on 05.05.2006. Since the
shopkeepers were not willing for the reconstruction of the market, the
petitions were directed to be listed along with W.P.(C) No. 310 of 1999. The
Commissioner was also required to give a proposal for reconstruction. By the
impugned order dated 18.01.2008, the High Court disposed of all the writ petitions
with various directions as found in paragraph 8 of the impugned order.
i. Aggrieved by the said
order, the appellants-shop keepers have filed these appeals by way of special
leave petitions before this Court.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Heard
Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. K.K. Venugopal
and Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, learned senior counsel for the Municipal Corporation,
Gwalior and Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State of M.P.
5.
According
to Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellants, several interim
orders and the impugned final order of the High Court are wholly outside the
legitimate scope and jurisdiction of PIL as stipulated in various decisions of
this Court. He further contended that the directions of the High Court by which
the appellants-shopkeepers have to vacate their legally rented shops for construction
of a new 7-storey shopping complex in their place are opposed to and outside
the legitimate jurisdiction of a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
He also contended that the High Court over-stepped its jurisdiction while continuing
to pass order after order constituting a Committee to supervise the
construction of shopping complex and requiring various authorities to facilitate
by sanctioning necessary permission and so on.
6.
On
the other hand, Mr. K.K. Venugopal and Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, learned senior counsel
for the Municipal Corporation submitted that at every stage even at the time of
passing various directions, the appellants consented the same and taking note of
the interest of all the shopkeepers and for the convenience of the general
public making provision for parking etc., the High Court issued various directions
which are not only consented by the shopkeepers but also in consonance with the
decisions of the Town and Country Planning Department as well as the State Government.
They also submitted that by the impugned directions, the appellants-shopkeepers
are not going to loose anything, on the other hand, the Municipal Corporation
has assured that they will be provided alternate accommodation till the completion
of the fresh construction and after new construction, they will be provided
convenient shops in the ground floor itself with more facility for parking,
accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of all the above appeals as devoid of
any merits.
7.
We
have carefully considered the rival submissions, impugned order of the High Court
including various orders passed, statutory provisions and all other relevant
materials.
8.
In
order to consider the issues raised above, it is relevant to note the ultimate
directions issued by the High Court. It is useful to mention that the High Court
has considered the issue not only in the PIL filed by an advocate of the local
Bar but also heard and decided three writ petitions filed by 252 shopkeepers
having their business in the market in question.
9.
The
following directions in paragraph 8 of the impugned order are relevant. They
are as follows: "8. As we have directed through interim orders and the Town
and Country Planning vide order dated 5.12.2007 has granted permission for construction
of new shopping complex of seven storeys, with three underground storeys of parking
area, in the interest of all, this petition and connected petitions are
disposed of finally with the following directions:
a. That now the respondent
No.2 Municipal Corporation shall construct new Gandhi Market Building as per
the permission granted by the Town and Country Planning Department, Gwalior as well
as by the State Government.
b. That the aforesaid construction
shall be supervised by the Committee constituted by this Court vide interim order
dated 20.4.2007. Committee and Corporation will ensure the construction of the new
building for the commercial market and will see that the tenders are invited timely
and agency is fixed for the purpose of construction. Whenever agency shall be fixed
by the Corporation for the purpose of construction, then after entering into agreement
with the agency but before issuing the work order, the Committee will give
notice to the shopkeepers for vacating the shops and within a period of two months,
shopkeepers shall vacate the shops. The shopkeepers will not raise any
objection on any alternative site granted by the Municipal Corporation for
running the business and will not delay in vacating the shops. After taking
over the possession, the agency will start the work and see that the construction
upto ground floor level is completed within a period of one year and thereafter
shops are allotted to the old shopkeepers positively within a period of 18 months
on the outer limit.
c. That the ground floor
shops shall be allotted to the shopkeepers, those who will deposit the balance
amount of three instalments and shall also enter into an agreement with the
Corporation.
d. That the Corporation shall
be free to allot the shops of first, second and third floor on fair and auction
basis under the supervision of the Committee. Other terms and conditions of the
allotment shall be settled by the Corporation and the Committee. So far as the participation
of the representatives of the shopkeepers in the Committee, that shall be limited
only for the ground floor shop.
e. Municipal Corporation
shall be free to fix the fresh rent/licence fee of the new shops, which shall be
allotted to the existing shopkeepers. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation and
Committee shall submit quarterly progress report in the Court."
10.
The
whole controversy involved in these appeals is about the order dated 18.01.2008
passed by the High Court in the said writ petitions. The question for consideration
before this Court is whether the High Court overstepped in its legitimate and legal
jurisdiction while continuing to pass order after order constituting a Committee
to supervise the construction of the shopping complex and any such directions
can at all be issued by the High Court while exercising its powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11.
The
Municipal Corporation, Gwalior before the High Court as well as in this Court furnished
necessary details about their stand. It is seen that a Writ Petition No. 310 of
1999 filed by Advocate G.S. Tomar was pending consideration in which the encroachment
caused on the public way belonging to the M.P. Housing Board in Najar Bagh market
situated at Maharaj Bada where the Municipal Corporation raised certain wooden
stall pucca structure and was going to auction the same but subsequently under the
orders of the Court in miscellaneous petitions, the petitioner confined the
issue only to the question relating to encroachment in Gandhi Market, Gwalior. It
was stated in the writ petition that the shopkeepers of Gandhi Market have encroached
upon the verandah which was constructed in front of the shops for the use of public
and the prayer was made that the aforesaid verandah which has been encroached upon
by the shopkeepers may be removed. While so, in the other writ petitions, all the
shopkeepers have stated that they have not made any encroachment of the verandah.
When, on earlier occasion, this Court was approached by the parties with regard
to certain interim directions, this Court requested the High Court to dispose of
the main writ petitions at an early date. Pursuant to the same, all the writ
petitions were heard on several occasions and before passing a final order,
several interim orders/directions were issued.
12.
At
the foremost, Mr. Gupta submitted that they were not parties in the writ
petition filed as PIL, hence without affording opportunity, various directions have
been issued. Inasmuch as almost all the shop keepers have filed three writ petitions
conveying their stand and admittedly all those writ petitions were heard along
PIL (Writ Petition No. 310 of 1999), the said objection is liable to be
rejected. Consent by the shop keepers:
13.
Though
Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the
High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while considering the writ petitions
filed under Article 226, Mr. K.K. Venugopal and Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, learned
senior counsel for the Municipal Corporation while refuting the above contention
pointed out that several orders were passed by the High Court on the basis of the
consent given by the shopkeepers.
On 09.01.2005, the High
Court passed the following order: "During course of arguments, counsel for
the petitioners suggested that each shop keeper will deposit Rs. One Lac with the
Municipal Corporation, Gwalior in four monthly installments, First Installment
shall be paid next month and thereafter other installments shall be paid every month
in the Municipal Corporation. Counsel for the Municipal Corporation submits
that they will prepare a map for development of Gandhi Market and will prepare a
good shopping complex having first and second floor.
Plan shall also include
parking area. It is also suggested by the Municipal Corporation that the shopping
complex shall be prepared in such a manner that existing shop keepers will not be
dispossessed till first floor is completed. However, exact plan will be submitted
by them within one month. Petitioners have also agreed that they will not keep of
their goods on the footpath and the footpath will be kept clear. They have further
agreed that there shall be no encroachment on the footpath including hangings on
the footpath. Respondents shall ensure that no vehicles are parked on the
footpath. Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that they will move an application
before the Apex Court for extension of time for decision of the petition.
It is, therefore,
directed that the amount so deposited by the shopkeepers shall be kept in a separate
fund by the Municipal Corporation and its use shall be considered at the time
of final hearing."
14.
Again
on 19.01.2005, the High Court passed the following order: "Shopkeepers of Gandhi
Market have discussed the matter amongst themselves and have decided to deposit
Rs. One Lac each with Municipal Corporation which shall be deposited by them in
four equal monthly installments. Similarly, shop keepers of Victoria Market and
the market nearby the Town Hall have agreed to deposit Rs. 50,000/- each in two
installments with Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. It is directed that the amount
so deposited by the shop keepers shall be kept in a separate fund by the Municipal
Corporation and its use shall be considered at the time of final hearing.
Respondent-Municipal
Corporation has submitted that they will prepare a plan for development of these
markets as a shopping complex with the assistance of Town Planner and ensure that
there is no traffic congestion in the area and shall also prepare parking place
so that citizens have no inconvenience on the public streets. Shop keepers have
assured that there will be no encroachment on the footpath and the respondents
will be at liberty to remove the encroachment, if found on the footpath. They
shall also ensure that footpath is not obstructed by any vehicle. Counsel for the
petitioners before the Apex Court submit they will be moving an application in the
Apex Court for extension of time for disposal of the petition. As prayed, list this
petition for further orders next month alongwith other connected
petitions."
15.
Thereafter,
the High Court, on 11.03.2005, passed the following order: "Shri Bhardwaj
stated that as per undertaking given by the shop keepers of Gandhi Market an amount
of Rs. 62,27,000/- has been deposited with the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. Counsel
for the shop keepers submits that efforts are being made to pay future installments.
He further submits that if the map prepared by the Municipal Corporation for development
and beautification of the market, as ordered earlier by this Court, is produced
and after going through the map, shop keepers will be in a position to raise further
funds and deposit other installments as undertaken by them earlier. Shri Bidua,
counsel for the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior has informed that the
finalization of map is at the final stage and is likely to be finalized by the end
of next week.
He submits that plan
for development will be ready within a week or ten days. Since there is likelihood
of amicable settlement in the matter, we post this case after two weeks. On that
date, map approved by the Municipal Corporation for development of Gandhi
Market shall be produced in the Court for perusal. Shri Bhardwaj has mentioned that
in view of further development in the case they have already approached the Apex
Court for extension of time for deciding the petitions as the dispute is being settled
between the Municipal Corporation and the shop keepers. He has also stated that
there is every possibility that the application for extension of time will be
heard in the next week."
16.
From
the above orders, it is clear that with the consent of the parties, the order of
construction of new market was passed and maps were prepared.
17.
Again,
by order dated 06.05.2005, the High Court has specifically mentioned "the scheme
for development of the market shall also be finalized in consultation with the
shopkeepers". The same reads as under:- "Today counsel for Municipal Corporation
intimated that maps for Gandhi Market have been prepared by the Architect and accepted
by Municipal Corporation. Said maps be shown to the shop keepers or
representatives of shop keepers. The scheme for development of the market shall
also be finalized in consultation with the shop keepers. Counsel for the parties
state that they will sit together and negotiate the matter."
18.
18)
Thereafter, on 08.07.2005, the High Court passed the following order: "As
agreed by the shopkeepers on 19.01.2005, that they will deposit Rs. One lac
with the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior in four equal monthly instalments, they
have deposited only one instalment and remaining three instalments at the rate of
Rs.25,000/- per month have not been deposited. Maps have been prepared by the Municipal
Corporation which have been shown to the representatives of the shopkeepers. Now
the shopkeepers state that all the shopkeepers want to see the maps and CD prepared
for construction of the market. Municipal Corporation has no objection in
showing the entire plan to them. However, the shopkeepers are directed to
deposit the second instalment within fifteen days and thereafter remaining instalments
be paid in equal instalments every fifteen days and after deposit of second instalment
those shop keepers who have deposited the second instalment will be entitled to
see the maps CDs and, the Municipal Corporation will be at liberty to remove
those shop keepers who are not willing to deposit their instalments. However,
before passing any order of removal, Municipal Corporation shall examine their encroachments
and other factors and submit report before this Court."
19.
The
same order has been reiterated on 24.03.2006 which is as follows:- "Shopkeepers
are not ready to honour their offer given before this Court and they are not prepared
to pay the amount of premium as agreed by them on 19.01.2005. They have deposited
only one installment of Rs. 25,000/- and they have not deposited the remaining three
installments. Though, vide order dated 08.07.2005, the shopkeepers were
directed to deposit the second installment, but they have not done so, which shows
that the shopkeepers are not willing to cooperate and now they have applied for
exemption. In the circumstances, petition is required to be heard finally. In the
meantime, the Municipal Corporation shall auction the shops, which shall not be
finalized, so that the court will be in a position to know the actual rental
value of each shop. The auction shall be for the area of shop only and the encroached
verandah shall not be auctioned which shall be clarified in the auction notice
and the Corporation will be at liberty to remove the encroached area. List the
petition finally before appropriate Bench, as prayed for by the counsel for the
petitioners, in the week commencing 1st May, 2006. It is directed that before the
date of hearing, Municipal Corporation shall submit the price offered for each shop
and the State shall also submit the valuation report of each shop."
20.
On
09.02.2007, the Court recorded that: "Shri Bidua (counsel for Respondent
No.2) prays for time to submit verification report of the photographs filed by Shri
V.K. Bharadwaj counsel for intervenors and shopkeepers and to submit report
about closing of verandah against the shops."
21.
Again,
on 02.03.2007, the High Court passed a brief order which is as follows: "With
the consent of the parties, it is directed that Shri Sharma, Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation will complete the inviting process of tenders for the construction
of new market building at the place of old Gandhi Market on or before
09.03.2007."
22.
The
order dated 20.04.2007 is very relevant which reads as under:- "For the
construction of new market building at the place of old Gandhi Market, the shop
keepers have consented." "Today, the Municipal Corporation has filed a
compliance report". With a view to complete the project and to remove the day
to day hurdles with the consent of the parties, we constitute a Committee
comprising of ....."
23.
23)
The following noting in the order dated 04.05.2007 by the High Court is also
relevant which reads as under:- "Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel appearing
for the shop keepers submitted that the shop keepers will not raise any objection
before the Committee regarding the construction of the market."
24.
24)
It is abundantly clear that from time to time, on different occasions with the
consent of the parties, the construction of new Gandhi Market was discussed and
a Committee was constituted after the order dated 20.04.2007.
25.
25)
The High Court, on different occasions, took into consideration the objections and
suggestions of the Director, Town and Country Planning Department, the Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Principal Secretary, Housing Development and passed an
order on 18.05.2007 which is as follows:- "Today progress report along
with minutes of the meeting of the Committee dated 14.05.2007 has been filed, which
is taken on record and Corporation has also produced copy of letter dated
15.05.2007 written by Joint Director, Town and Country Planning Department to the
Director for seeking permission from the State. It is submitted that the
Architect has already submitted map as per advice of the Joint Director, Town and
Country Planning Department and the matter has been referred to the Government
for permission. So far as the question of permission upto the height of 24 meter
is concerned, that shall be obtained by the Municipal Corporation and not by
the Contractor.
The Committee has fixed
the next date of meeting of 5th June, 2007. List this case on 6th July, 2007. In
the meantime, the State Government shall take a decision on the permission and
the Committee shall also finalize the map and issue the tenders for fixing the agency
etc. During this period every effort should be made to complete the formalities
and process of inviting tenders should also be started so that the construction
plan may be prepared. Next progress report shall be submitted on 6th July,
2007.
The same order has been
reiterated in the subsequent order dated 20.07.2007. On 27.07.2007, the High
Court passed the following which reads thus:- "It is directed that Shri
Batham will continue to co-ordinate between the authorities and will see that
the inspection and report is submitted by the School of Planning and Architecture,
New Delhi as early as possible and the consent is obtained from the Department of
Town and Country Planning as well as the State Government. He will also submit
the reply of the queries and fulfill all the conditions which are necessary for
the approval of the project. The Corporation is directed to submit the further
progress report on 10.08.2007.
26.
If
we analyze the above-mentioned and various other orders, it would not be possible
to conclude that the High Court over stepped its limit while giving directions
in para 8 of the impugned order. As rightly observed by the High Court, it is
the duty and responsibility of the Public Department of the State Government, Municipal
Corporation to take all endeavour to save the town of Gwalior from encroachments
and also easing the public utility system. The materials placed by the
Municipal Corporation clearly show that Gandhi Market which is primarily a
cloth market is established in the year 1952 is now in a very haphazard condition
causing difficulty in the movement of public as well as of vehicles. It was
highlighted that in the day time as well as in the evening busy time, it takes
hours together for the vehicles to pass from that area. Photographs were also shown
to us. It is impossible for the public to even walk on the street. The shop
keepers are dumping their products upon the street which is not permissible. The
public are prevented from using the foot path/pavement meant for them. In such circumstances,
a decision was taken to construct a multi-level parking-cum-commercial complex.
In this process of construction, it was planned to shift temporarily the
present shop keepers to some other nearby places.
27.
It
is further seen that the present commercial area of the appellants/shop keepers
is 60 sq. ft. which has been converted by encroaching the area of verandah and
converted the same into 90 sq. ft area. The new shop of 60 sq. ft. size is to
be given to 252 present incumbents of Gandhi Market. It is highlighted that to
construct the building to the height of 12.5 metres having 3 layers of basement
for parking, the ground floor shall have 252 shops which shall be allotted to the
present incumbents of Gandhi Market and other floors shall be at the disposal
of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior.
28.
In
view of the various orders passed by the High Court on the basis of consensus of
the parties, more particularly, with the consent of the shop keepers, a Committee
was appointed and a direction was issued for providing alternate place to the
shop keepers till new construction being completed in the existing place and
all of them were assured of accommodation in the ground floor of the new market
complex, we are of the view that the ultimate directions issued in the final order
dated 18.01.2008 by the High Court cannot be faulted with.
29.
The
next submission of Mr. Gupta relates to applications filed by the appellants
before the High Court for recalling the order dated 24.03.2006 and also seeking
clarification on the same order as well as another application for refund of the
amount deposited. Admittedly, one application was rejected on 05.05.2006 and it
is not clear how the other applications are kept pending even after disposal of
main writ petitions.
About the amount deposited
by the shop keepers, both the senior counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation
submitted that the said amount was not towards adjustment of construction charges
but the same would be adjusted towards future licence fees. In the light of the
same, there is no substance in the contention relating to filing of
applications about various orders passed by the High Court. As rightly pointed out
by Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, learned senior counsel for the Municipal Corporation even after
the so-called applications, the consent to the process of a new market place
continued and this is evident from the orders of the High Court dated 02.03.2007,
20.04.2007 and 04.05.2007. It is also brought to our notice that some applications
that were made in June/July to recall the order dated 04.05.2007 were not
pressed. In view of the same, we are unable to accept the claim of the learned
senior counsel for the appellants.
30.
In
view of our factual conclusion based on the materials placed by both the
parties as well as various orders of the High Court, we feel that there is no need
to advert to various decisions relied on by the learned senior counsel for the
appellants.
31.
In
the light of the above discussion, we are satisfied that various directions in
para 8 of the impugned order of the High Court cannot be faulted with and
according to us it safeguards not only the interest of the Municipal Corporation,
general public but also all the 252 shop keepers who are running their business
in the Gandhi Market. Further, it was not disputed before the High Court that Gandhi
Market became quite old and market is fully congested and there is no space for
parking.
That was the reason the
High Court specifically recorded a finding in para 7 that: "..... under changed
circumstances that all the parties including the shop keepers have agreed for construction
of new Gandhi Market building in the place of old Gandhi Market building. This
Court has already in the interest of all the parties and the citizens of
Gwalior City, directed through interim orders for construction of a new market
building and has also constituted a Committee to see that new Gandhi Market building
is constructed and after construction, the existing shop keepers were also
settled therein. .... ...."
We fully endorse the above
view. Though an argument was advanced that the permission granted by Joint
Director, Town and Country Planning, Gwalior in his proceeding dated 05.12.2007
to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior regarding reconstruction of
Gandhi Market, Gwalior was objected to by the Director and further approval of the
State Government is required, inasmuch as the Joint Director is the officer competent,
we hope and trust that no fresh construction would be carried out without the
authority of the person concerned and contrary to the statutory
provisions/regulations, accordingly, we reject the said contention also.
32.
Under
these circumstances, we are unable to agree with any one of the submissions made
by the appellants, on the other hand, we are in entire agreement with the stand
of the respondents and reasonings and conclusion arrived at by the High Court. We
direct the respondents, particularly, the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and the
officers concerned to implement the directions of the High Court within the
parameters of the statutory provisions considering the interest of the general public
as well all the shop keepers of the existing market. In view of the disposal of
the civil appeals, Municipal Corporation is free to proceed with the
construction as directed in the impugned order of the High Court and in the
light of the above observations, as early as possible, and we also direct that all
the directions of the High Court shall be adhered to. It is further directed
that as soon as construction up to ground floor level is completed along with the
required parking facilities at the basement level those shops are to be allotted
to the old shop keepers in the Gandhi Market within a period of six months after
completion of such construction, unless an individual shop keeper becomes ineligible
for the known reason.
33.
Consequently,
all the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. In view of the same, interim
stay granted by this Court on 17.10.2008 shall stand vacated. No order as to
costs.
..........................................J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
..........................................J.
(DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)
NEW
DELHI;
AUGUST
30, 2011.
Back
Pages: 1 2