R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.4.1985 whereby shop in question was declared vacant by the Rent Control Officer, Rishikesh, order dated 13.5.1985 whereby shop in dispute was allotted in favour of respondent No. 3 and order dated 29.5.1985 whereby revision filed by the petitioner against the order of allotment and the declaration of vacancy referred to above was dismissed.
(2.) It appears that the shop in dispute was occupied by the petitioner as a tenant, since then the said shop used to remain locked by the respondent No. 3 and other persons have applied for allotment. On the application being filed the shop in question was got inspected through the Rent Control Inspector, who reported that the shop in dispute was vacant. On the basis of the said report the shop in dispute was declared vacant by order dated 17.4.1985 by respondent No. 2. Thereafter proceedings for allotment were started and the shop in dispute was allotted in favour of respondent No. 3 on 13.5.1985. The petitioner challenging the validity of the order of allotment filed a revision before the Revisional Authority contending that the shop in dispute was not vacant and the same was illegally declared to be vacant. On the other hand the respondent No. 3 contended that the shop in dispute was rightly declared vacant. It was also contended that the petitioner was holding the post of Block Development Officer and therefore, he had no right to run the shop and the order of allotment was rightly passed in his favour. The Revisional Court affirmed the order of declaration of vacancy as well as the order of allotment and dismissed the revision, hence the present petition.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities below have acted illegally in declaring the shop in question as vacant allotting the same and dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. The said orders according to him, were liable to be quashed. On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submitted that the shop in dispute was rightly declared as vacant and was thereafter rightly allotted in favour of the said respondent. The writ petition has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed.;