D.N.PATEL - (1.) .The present petition has been preferred for a direction on the respondents for allotment of a shop at Salini Market, situated at Jamshedpur. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon an allotment letter, Annexure -1 and other annexures to the memo of petition and submitted that despite the allotment of the shop the concerned authorities have never given possession of the shop in question at Salini Market, Jamshedpur. It is, therefore, prayed that a suitable direction be given to the respondents for allotment and for grant of possession of the shop in question.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents who has submitted that a detailed counter -affidavit has been filed on the basis of the record, stating clearly in Paragraph Nos. 12, 15 and 16 that there was no such allotment of the shop to the present petitioner. A false and fictitious claim has been advanced while ventilating imaginary allegations in the memo of petition. The petitioner was never allotted any shop in the Salini Market at Jamshedpur nor was given any possession of the shop and, therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for the sides and looking to the counteraffidavit it appears that: - I. the present petitioner is in search session of a shop at Salini Market at Jamshedpur, but the petitioner is unable to establish any fact that he was ever allotted any shop at Salini Market, Jamshedpur. II. from the facts of the case it appears that the whole claim made by the present petitioner is on the fictitious and imaginary allegations and it is stated in the counter -affidavit that never any shop at Salini Market at Jamshedpur has been allotted to the petitioner and, therefore, now no question of giving of any possession of any shop to the petitioner whatsoever arises. III. looking to Paragraphs No. 12, 15 and 16 of the .counter -affidavit, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner is unable to point out any thing from record that he was allotted the shop in question. On the contrary it has been stated in Paragraph No.15 that certain documents signed by the petitioner whereas in some documents thumb marks have been put by the present petitioner. This also reveals that petitioner is advancing the reasons on the basis of the fictitious claim. No rejoinder of affidavit has been filed. Even otherwise also, if the whole case is based upon some fictitious documents as per allegations by the respondents, it requires evidence to be led before this Court which I do not want to allow and decide the dispute which is based upon unreliable documents while exercising power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even, prima facie, the petitioner is unable to establish his case whether there was legally allotment of shop in question.
(3.) IN view of these facts, there is no substance in this writ petition and the same is hereby, dismissed.;