- (1.) The Lucknow Development Authority, LDA has developed markets and local shopping centres in various Khands of the Gomti Nagar scheme. These include Vivek Khand-2 "Ujala Market", Vinay Khand-2 "Janta Market", Vinay Khand-3 "Adarsh Market", Vivek Khand-4 "LDA Market" and Vikas Khand "LDA Market". It has been averred that as part of the lay out provision was made for carving out public conveniences, including toilets for men and women and for the purpose of facilitating the parking of cars. The writ petition contains specific allegations against the third respondent (who came to be impleaded during pendency of these proceedings in pursuance of an order dated 25 October 2013). The petition alleges that the third respondent was initially allotted Shop No. 1. According to the petitioner, a toilet for women forms part of the initial and revised lay out adjacent to Shop No. 1A which was occupied by the shop keeper (the third respondent) without any lawful authority as a result of which the area of the toilet was included into the area covered by the shop. The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, Act on 8 April 2010 in regard to the manner in which Shops 1 and 1A were allotted to the third respondent. In the information which was disclosed to him under the Act, it is stated that a shop has previously been constructed in accordance with the approved lay out and that there appeared to be no encroachment thereon. The petitioner filed these proceedings. The reliefs which have been sought in these proceedings are in the following terms: "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to restore/construct the toilets and parking in the markets. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to remove the encroachment from the toilets and parking and realize damages from the encroachers."
(2.) These reliefs would indicate that though there is a specific grievance in regard to the third respondent, the prayers are broader than a mere claim of encroachment against the third respondent since the petitioner seeks a mandamus to LDA in particular to restore and construct toilets in the market areas and provide parking facilities, besides removing encroachments.
(3.) At the outset, it may be noted that the locus of the petitioner has been challenged by the third respondent. In the counter affidavit which has been filed by the third respondent, it has been stated that on 9 October 2012, the petitioner, whose wife is an elected Corporator from Ward No. 36, Lucknow Nagar Nigam, made an attempt to illegally occupy land earmarked for parking in Ujala Market with an intention to construct his office over the land. The police are stated to have intervened in the matter when the work was stopped. The shop keepers in the market including the third respondent are stated to have made an application to the Police Station, Gomti Nagar on 10 October 2012 and thereafter to the first respondent to take action. A further affidavit has been filed by the third respondent in which, it has been stated that the petitioner who has claimed himself to be an advocate and a social worker in the writ petition is alleged to be actually carrying on a business and is a contractor registered with the Commercial tax department. Documentary material has been relied upon in regard to the registration with the Commercial tax authorities of a concern in which the petitioner has an interest. A report of the police authorities dated 11 October 2012 is annexed, indicating that an attempt was made by the petitioner to put up a board in the market place in the area reserved for parking. The first respondent has stated that in Ujala Market of Vivek Khand separate lavatories for men and women were envisaged and that the plan was modified to a certain extent. It has been stated that toilets have been constructed in accordance with a modified lay out map. From the affidavit of the first respondent, it appears that Shop No. 1A was originally allotted to the third respondent whereas Shop No. 1 was purchased by the third respondent from a third party. LDA purports to have allotted extra land contiguous to Shop No. 1A to the third respondent on or about 19 March 2010.;