- (1.) These are two connected writ petitions based on same set of facts raising common question of law, hence, are being disposed of by this common judgment. Heard Shri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) The Petitioners claim to be licensee of shops situate within the judgeship of Meerut, paying licence fee to the office of the District Judge, Meerut. The Petitioners further alleged that in the year 1996, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, the Incharge, Nazarat and the Central Nazir, Civil Court, Meerut decided to shift the shops in the premises of judgeship on account of the extension of building and a decision was taken that till any permanent arrangement is made, the shopkeepers will be permitted to run the shop on the western side of the Meerut judgeship, outside the premises. O/C, Nazarat submitted a proposal dated 29.1.1998 to the District Judge that the licencees accommodated in the temporary shops constructed on the main road connecting the civil Court and Collectorate compound has resulted in great congestion on the main road and, thus, it is desirable to cut down the number of shops drastically to improve the traffic situation. It was further mentioned in the report that in the year 1989, when the shops were put to auction, the association of shopkeepers filed Writ Petition No. 6517 of 1989, which was finally disposed of on 15.2.1990 with the observation that Article 226 cannot be invoked in such a cases and the Petitioners should be relegated to the remedy of civil suit in a competent Civil Court. The report further mentions that if general auction of shops is not found to be feasible then the license of those shopkeepers, who have not paid their licence fee or are doing business in benami names, be cancelled. What transpired after the decision of this Court dated 15.2.1990 and till 2009 is not clear from the record. However, the Respondents again made an advertisement for auction of shops for the year 2009-10 which was challenged by the Petitioners before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 16024 of 2009.
(3.) On the information furnished by the learned Counsel appearing for the District Judge that out of 10 Petitioners, who had participated in the auction, 9 were successful being the highest bidder and 17 persons had transferred their rights in favour of other persons, who also participated in the auction and were highest bidder, were allotted shops, this Court dismissed the writ petition with the following observation. We, however, record that there is no illegality in the process held for allotment of the shops, which may warrant any interference by this Court. The District Judge is entitled to settle the shops situate in the Civil Court premises by auction, which is a fair process. There is no infeasible right in favour of the Petitioners which may call for the auction notice being interfered with. If any of the Petitioners is still aggrieved, he is at liberty to institute a civil suit before the competent Court for the relief prayed. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is dismissed.;