B.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Lalit Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. J.C. Belwal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief- 1. To call for the record of the case and issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated 18.9.2010 passed by the respondent No. 2 and 3 contained in letter No. @Hindi@ Of 2010&1152] dated 18.9.2010 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition). 2. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct­ing the respondents not to stop the petitioner from working from his allot­ted shop No. C-114 in the Mandi Samiti Sthal, Haldwani, District Nainital. 3. Such other relief be granted which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and award cost to the petitioner.
(2.) IT is alleged that the allotment of the shop, allotted to the petitioner, has been cancelled by respondents on the ground that the petitioner was a part­ner in a firm on 30.6.2003. The petitioner has submitted that he has never been a partner in any firm or shop after 26.10.2003. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 10.12.2009, passed in W.P. No. 1949 of 2009 (M/S), M/s Harish Singh BacM Singh and Co. and others v. Director, Mandi Samiti and another, along with two other writ petitions, directed the Mandi Samiti to delete the names within a period of 10 days, of those appli­cants, if any, from the list, who already have a shop in the market yard, ei­ther in individual name of even as a partner of a firm. After deleting the names of such persons who are clearly ineligible for allotment as per its own policy of the Mandi Samiti, the Mandi Samit shall prepare a list in discending order as per Qause-1 of the policy by calculating the "mandi fee" given by the said ap­plicants. In case the number of such applicants are less or equal that the number of shops then in such an eventuality the shops will be allocated as per their names in the list and the use of lottery will not be for allocation of shops but only for the "choice" of shops.
(3.) THIS fact is admitted to the respondents also that on 10.12.2009 the petitioner was not a partner in any shop within Mandi area and he was partner of the firm prior to 26.10.2003. Since the matter requires scrutiny and no opportu nity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the respondents 1 and 2 before passing the impugned order, therefore, it would be proper to direct the respon­dents 2 and 3 to hear the petitioner, consider his objection and pass fresh order regarding the shop in question.;