//
you're reading...
legal issues

According to the appellants-shopkeepers, after the partition of the country, in the year 1952, the Government constructed Gandhi Market in Gwalior with 250 shops and allotted them to the appellants herein, who were migrated to India from Pakistan at the time of partition, as tenants/licensees. Each shop covers 60 sq.ft. space + 30 sq.ft. Verandah, in total 90 sq.ft. area and has in front a 5 ft. wide footpath and then a public road. In the year 1975, notice was issued by the Municipal Corporation of Gwalior to the shopkeepers proposing to increase the rent from Rs.7/- to Rs.220/- per month. However, on 18.03.1977, the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior agreed to increase the rent only by 7% from the original rent and also clarified that the enhanced rent would cover area in front of the shops and no additional charges were to be paid in that respect. On 24.05.1994, the Municipal

Villagers, Bathpura, district Gwalior, India.

Image via Wikipedia

 REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 7520-7523 OF 2011

 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.26197-26200 of 2008)

Rakesh Sharma & Ors. .... Appellant (s)

 Versus

State of M.P. & Ors. .... Respondent(s)

 J U D G M E N T 

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) These appeals are directed against the judgment and 

final order dated 18.01.2008 passed by the High Court of 

Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in 

Writ Petition Nos. 1873, 1878 and 2101 of 2003 and 310 of 

1999 whereby the High Court disposed of the writ petitions 

and issued various directions to the Municipal Corporation, 

 1

Gwalior in paragraph 8 of the impugned order for construction 

of a market complex known as "New Gandhi Market Building". 

3) Brief facts:

(a) According to the appellants-shopkeepers, after the 

partition of the country, in the year 1952, the Government 

constructed Gandhi Market in Gwalior with 250 shops and 

allotted them to the appellants herein, who were migrated to 

India from Pakistan at the time of partition, as 

tenants/licensees. Each shop covers 60 sq.ft. space + 30 sq.ft. 

Verandah, in total 90 sq.ft. area and has in front a 5 ft. wide 

footpath and then a public road. In the year 1975, notice was 

issued by the Municipal Corporation of Gwalior to the 

shopkeepers proposing to increase the rent from Rs.7/- to 

Rs.220/- per month. However, on 18.03.1977, the State of 

Madhya Pradesh as well as the Municipal Corporation, 

Gwalior agreed to increase the rent only by 7% from the 

original rent and also clarified that the enhanced rent would 

cover area in front of the shops and no additional charges 

were to be paid in that respect. On 24.05.1994, the Municipal 

 2

Corporation passed Resolution No.40 by which, area of the 

shop was treated as 90 sq. ft. including the verandah. 

(b) On 28.02.1999, a public interest litigation petition, being 

Writ Petition No. 310 of 1999 was filed by a lawyer, G.S. 

Tomar, against encroachment and erection of wooden stalls by 

the Municipal Corporation over the land of the Madhya 

Pradesh Housing Board in Nazar Bagh Market, which is 

described as "the heart of the city". By order dated 

15.12.2000, the High Court directed that the said structures 

erected by the Municipal Corporation would be removed. The 

petition was listed before the Division Bench on various dates 

and several directions were issued by the High Court. 

Thereafter, on 04.02.2003, the High Court directed the 

Municipal Corporation to furnish information regarding the 

steps being taken to remove encroachments on public streets. 

In May/June, 2003, the Municipal Corporation issued notices 

to the appellants alleging that they were in illegal occupancy of 

the front portion of their shops and directed them to remove 

the alleged encroachments with the threat for demolition of 

offending construction, if any. Consequently, the shopkeepers 

 3

of Gandhi Market filed petitions before the High Court praying 

that they have not made any encroachment of the Verandah. 

The shopkeepers of various markets also filed writ petitions 

before the High Court. All the petitions were directed to be 

listed along with Writ Petition No. 310 of 1999. 

(c) During the pendency of the writ petitions, the High 

Court, by order dated 04.07.2003, appointed District Judge 

(Vigilance) as a Local Commissioner in respect of the illegal 

encroachments and constructions and directed the Municipal 

Corporation to continue with the removal of encroachment 

from the footpaths and public streets which were identified by 

the District Judge (Vigilance). It further directed that 

objections, if any, would be submitted to the District Judge.

(d) Against the order dated 04.07.2003, some of the 

shopkeepers of other markets filed Special Leave Petition No. 

12446 of 2003 before this Court wherein this Court issued 

notice and stayed the demolition until further orders. 

(e) On 25.08.2003, the Local Commissioner submitted his 

report before the High Court and the High Court directed that 

it may not be open to the parties to raise any further 

 4

objections to the report. Against the said order, the appellants 

herein filed S.L.Ps. before this Court which were directed to be 

tagged with the earlier S.L.P.(C) No. 12446 of 2003. This 

Court disposed of all the petitions on 25.10.2004 by directing 

the High Court to dispose of the writ petitions as expeditiously 

as possible after taking into consideration the objections of the 

appellants and directed to maintain the status quo as on that 

date till the disposal of the writ petitions. 

(f) On 19.01.2005, the High Court directed the Municipal 

Corporation to submit a plan and map for development of 

Gandhi Market as a shopping complex having first and second 

floor and a parking area. As the appellants agreed to pay Rs.1 

lakh each in four instalments for construction of the first floor 

shops, the High Court further directed that the amounts 

deposited by the shopkeepers would be kept in a separate 

fund by the Corporation and its use would be considered at 

the time of final hearing. 

(g) On 08.07.2005, the High Court directed that since the 

shopkeepers have not deposited the remaining three 

instalments, they shall pay the same and clarified that in 

 5

default, the Municipal Corporation is at liberty to remove the 

shopkeepers who are not willing to deposit their instalments. 

On 24.03.2006, the High Court further directed that the 

Municipal Corporation shall auction the shops excluding 

verandah by an auction notice for the Court to know the 

actual rental value and submit the price offered and the 

valuation report of each shop. In pursuance of the said order, 

the Municipal Corporation published notice but no one applied 

for the same. 

(h) Against the order dated 24.03.2006, the shopkeepers 

filed applications before the High Court for recalling the order 

and for refund of the amount deposited by them with interest 

and the same were dismissed by the High Court on 

05.05.2006. Since the shopkeepers were not willing for the 

reconstruction of the market, the petitions were directed to be 

listed along with W.P.(C) No. 310 of 1999. The Commissioner 

was also required to give a proposal for reconstruction. By the 

impugned order dated 18.01.2008, the High Court disposed of 

all the writ petitions with various directions as found in 

paragraph 8 of the impugned order. 

 6

(i) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants-shop keepers 

have filed these appeals by way of special leave petitions before 

this Court.

4) Heard Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the 

appellants, Mr. K.K. Venugopal and Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, learned 

senior counsel for the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and Mr. 

Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State of M.P.

5) According to Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for 

the appellants, several interim orders and the impugned final 

order of the High Court are wholly outside the legitimate scope 

and jurisdiction of PIL as stipulated in various decisions of 

this Court. He further contended that the directions of the 

High Court by which the appellants-shopkeepers have to 

vacate their legally rented shops for construction of a new 7-

storey shopping complex in their place are opposed to and 

outside the legitimate jurisdiction of a writ court under Article 

226 of the Constitution. He also contended that the High 

Court over-stepped its jurisdiction while continuing to pass 

order after order constituting a Committee to supervise the 

construction of shopping complex and requiring various 

 7

authorities to facilitate by sanctioning necessary permission 

and so on. 

6) On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Venugopal and Dr. Rajiv 

Dhavan, learned senior counsel for the Municipal Corporation 

submitted that at every stage even at the time of passing 

various directions, the appellants consented the same and 

taking note of the interest of all the shopkeepers and for the 

convenience of the general public making provision for parking 

etc., the High Court issued various directions which are not 

only consented by the shopkeepers but also in consonance 

with the decisions of the Town and Country Planning 

Department as well as the State Government. They also 

submitted that by the impugned directions, the appellants-

shopkeepers are not going to loose anything, on the other 

hand, the Municipal Corporation has assured that they will be 

provided alternate accommodation till the completion of the 

fresh construction and after new construction, they will be 

provided convenient shops in the ground floor itself with more 

facility for parking, accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of all 

the above appeals as devoid of any merits.

 8

7) We have carefully considered the rival submissions, 

impugned order of the High Court including various orders 

passed, statutory provisions and all other relevant materials.

8) In order to consider the issues raised above, it is relevant 

to note the ultimate directions issued by the High Court. It is 

useful to mention that the High Court has considered the 

issue not only in the PIL filed by an advocate of the local Bar 

but also heard and decided three writ petitions filed by 252 

shopkeepers having their business in the market in question. 

9) The following directions in paragraph 8 of the impugned 

order are relevant. They are as follows:

 "8. As we have directed through interim orders and the 

 Town and Country Planning vide order dated 5.12.2007 has 

 granted permission for construction of new shopping 

 complex of seven storeys, with three underground storeys of 

 parking area, in the interest of all, this petition and 

 connected petitions are disposed of finally with the following 

 directions:

 1. That now the respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation 

 shall construct new Gandhi Market Building as per the 

 permission granted by the Town and Country Planning 

 Department, Gwalior as well as by the State 

 Government.

 2. That the aforesaid construction shall be supervised by 

 the Committee constituted by this Court vide interim 

 order dated 20.4.2007. Committee and Corporation will 

 ensure the construction of the new building for the 

 commercial market and will see that the tenders are 

 invited timely and agency is fixed for the purpose of 

 9

 construction. Whenever agency shall be fixed by the 

 Corporation for the purpose of construction, then after 

 entering into agreement with the agency but before 

 issuing the work order, the Committee will give notice to 

 the shopkeepers for vacating the shops and within a 

 period of two months, shopkeepers shall vacate the 

 shops. The shopkeepers will not raise any objection on 

 any alternative site granted by the Municipal 

 Corporation for running the business and will not delay 

 in vacating the shops. After taking over the possession, 

 the agency will start the work and see that the 

 construction upto ground floor level is completed within 

 a period of one year and thereafter shops are allotted to 

 the old shopkeepers positively within a period of 18 

 months on the outer limit.

 3. That the ground floor shops shall be allotted to the 

 shopkeepers, those who will deposit the balance amount 

 of three instalments and shall also enter into an 

 agreement with the Corporation.

 4. That the Corporation shall be free to allot the shops of 

 first, second and third floor on fair and auction basis 

 under the supervision of the Committee. Other terms 

 and conditions of the allotment shall be settled by the 

 Corporation and the Committee. So far as the 

 participation of the representatives of the shopkeepers 

 in the Committee, that shall be limited only for the 

 ground floor shop.

 5. Municipal Corporation shall be free to fix the fresh 

 rent/licence fee of the new shops, which shall be 

 allotted to the existing shopkeepers. The Commissioner, 

 Municipal Corporation and Committee shall submit 

 quarterly progress report in the Court." 

10) The whole controversy involved in these appeals is about 

the order dated 18.01.2008 passed by the High Court in the 

said writ petitions. The question for consideration before this 

Court is whether the High Court overstepped in its legitimate 

 10

and legal jurisdiction while continuing to pass order after 

order constituting a Committee to supervise the construction 

of the shopping complex and any such directions can at all be 

issued by the High Court while exercising its powers under 

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 

11) The Municipal Corporation, Gwalior before the High 

Court as well as in this Court furnished necessary details 

about their stand. It is seen that a Writ Petition No. 310 of 

1999 filed by Advocate G.S. Tomar was pending consideration 

in which the encroachment caused on the public way 

belonging to the M.P. Housing Board in Najar Bagh market 

situated at Maharaj Bada where the Municipal Corporation 

raised certain wooden stall pucca structure and was going to 

auction the same but subsequently under the orders of the 

Court in miscellaneous petitions, the petitioner confined the 

issue only to the question relating to encroachment in Gandhi 

Market, Gwalior. It was stated in the writ petition that the 

shopkeepers of Gandhi Market have encroached upon the 

verandah which was constructed in front of the shops for the 

use of public and the prayer was made that the aforesaid 

 11

verandah which has been encroached upon by the 

shopkeepers may be removed. While so, in the other writ 

petitions, all the shopkeepers have stated that they have not 

made any encroachment of the verandah. When, on earlier 

occasion, this Court was approached by the parties with 

regard to certain interim directions, this Court requested the 

High Court to dispose of the main writ petitions at an early 

date. Pursuant to the same, all the writ petitions were heard 

on several occasions and before passing a final order, several 

interim orders/directions were issued. 

12) At the foremost, Mr. Gupta submitted that they were not 

parties in the writ petition filed as PIL, hence without affording 

opportunity, various directions have been issued. Inasmuch 

as almost all the shop keepers have filed three writ petitions 

conveying their stand and admittedly all those writ petitions 

were heard along PIL (Writ Petition No. 310 of 1999), the said 

objection is liable to be rejected. 

 12

Consent by the shop keepers:

13) Though Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel for the 

appellants vehemently contended that the High Court has 

exceeded its jurisdiction while considering the writ petitions 

filed under Article 226, Mr. K.K. Venugopal and Dr. Rajiv 

Dhavan, learned senior counsel for the Municipal Corporation 

while refuting the above contention pointed out that several 

orders were passed by the High Court on the basis of the 

consent given by the shopkeepers. On 09.01.2005, the High 

Court passed the following order:

 "During course of arguments, counsel for the petitioners 

 suggested that each shop keeper will deposit Rs. One Lac 

 with the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior in four monthly 

 installments, First Installment shall be paid next month and 

 thereafter other installments shall be paid every month in 

 the Municipal Corporation.

 Counsel for the Municipal Corporation submits that they will 

 prepare a map for development of Gandhi Market and will 

 prepare a good shopping complex having first and second 

 floor. Plan shall also include parking area. It is also 

 suggested by the Municipal Corporation that the shopping 

 complex shall be prepared in such a manner that existing 

 shop keepers will not be dispossessed till first floor is 

 completed. However, exact plan will be submitted by them 

 within one month.

 Petitioners have also agreed that they will not keep of their 

 goods on the footpath and the footpath will be kept clear. 

 They have further agreed that there shall be no 

 encroachment on the footpath including hangings on the 

 13

 footpath. Respondents shall ensure that no vehicles are 

 parked on the footpath.

 Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that they will 

 move an application before the Apex Court for extension of 

 time for decision of the petition.

 It is, therefore, directed that the amount so deposited by the 

 shopkeepers shall be kept in a separate fund by the 

 Municipal Corporation and its use shall be considered at the 

 time of final hearing."

14) Again on 19.01.2005, the High Court passed the 

following order:

 "Shopkeepers of Gandhi Market have discussed the matter 

 amongst themselves and have decided to deposit Rs. One 

 Lac each with Municipal Corporation which shall be 

 deposited by them in four equal monthly installments. 

 Similarly, shop keepers of Victoria Market and the market 

 nearby the Town Hall have agreed to deposit Rs. 50,000/- 

 each in two installments with Municipal Corporation, 

 Gwalior.

 It is directed that the amount so deposited by the shop 

 keepers shall be kept in a separate fund by the Municipal 

 Corporation and its use shall be considered at the time of 

 final hearing.

 Respondent- Municipal Corporation has submitted that they 

 will prepare a plan for development of these markets as a 

 shopping complex with the assistance of Town Planner and 

 ensure that there is no traffic congestion in the area and 

 shall also prepare parking place so that citizens have no 

 inconvenience on the public streets.

 Shop keepers have assured that there will be no 

 encroachment on the footpath and the respondents will be at 

 liberty to remove the encroachment, if found on the footpath. 

 They shall also ensure that footpath is not obstructed by any 

 vehicle.

 14

 Counsel for the petitioners before the Apex Court submit 

 they will be moving an application in the Apex Court for 

 extension of time for disposal of the petition.

 As prayed, list this petition for further orders next month 

 alongwith other connected petitions."

15) Thereafter, the High Court, on 11.03.2005, passed the 

following order:

 "Shri Bhardwaj stated that as per undertaking given by the 

 shop keepers of Gandhi Market an amount of Rs. 

 62,27,000/- has been deposited with the Municipal 

 Corporation, Gwalior. Counsel for the shop keepers submits 

 that efforts are being made to pay future installments. He 

 further submits that if the map prepared by the Municipal 

 Corporation for development and beautification of the 

 market, as ordered earlier by this Court, is produced and 

 after going through the map, shop keepers will be in a 

 position to raise further funds and deposit other 

 installments as undertaken by them earlier. Shri Bidua, 

 counsel for the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior has informed 

 that the finalization of map is at the final stage and is likely 

 to be finalized by the end of next week. He submits that 

 plan for development will be ready within a week or ten days.

 Since there is likelihood of amicable settlement in the 

 matter, we post this case after two weeks. On that date, 

 map approved by the Municipal Corporation for development 

 of Gandhi Market shall be produced in the Court for perusal.

 Shri Bhardwaj has mentioned that in view of further 

 development in the case they have already approached the 

 Apex Court for extension of time for deciding the petitions as 

 the dispute is being settled between the Municipal 

 Corporation and the shop keepers. He has also stated that 

 there is every possibility that the application for extension of 

 time will be heard in the next week."

 15

16) From the above orders, it is clear that with the consent of 

the parties, the order of construction of new market was 

passed and maps were prepared.

17) Again, by order dated 06.05.2005, the High Court has 

specifically mentioned "the scheme for development of the 

market shall also be finalized in consultation with the 

shopkeepers". The same reads as under:-

 "Today counsel for Municipal Corporation intimated that 

 maps for Gandhi Market have been prepared by the 

 Architect and accepted by Municipal Corporation.

 Said maps be shown to the shop keepers or representatives 

 of shop keepers. The scheme for development of the market 

 shall also be finalized in consultation with the shop keepers.

 Counsel for the parties state that they will sit together and 

 negotiate the matter." 

18) Thereafter, on 08.07.2005, the High Court passed the 

following order:

 "As agreed by the shopkeepers on 19.01.2005, that they will 

 deposit Rs. One lac with the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior 

 in four equal monthly instalments, they have deposited only 

 one instalment and remaining three instalments at the rate 

 of Rs.25,000/- per month have not been deposited. Maps 

 have been prepared by the Municipal Corporation which 

 have been shown to the representatives of the shopkeepers. 

 Now the shopkeepers state that all the shopkeepers want to 

 see the maps and CD prepared for construction of the 

 market. Municipal Corporation has no objection in showing 

 the entire plan to them. However, the shopkeepers are 

 directed to deposit the second instalment within fifteen days 

 and thereafter remaining instalments be paid in equal 

 16

 instalments every fifteen days and after deposit of second 

 instalment those shop keepers who have deposited the 

 second instalment will be entitled to see the maps CDs and, 

 the Municipal Corporation will be at liberty to remove those 

 shop keepers who are not willing to deposit their 

 instalments. However, before passing any order of removal, 

 Municipal Corporation shall examine their encroachments 

 and other factors and submit report before this Court." 

19) The same order has been reiterated on 24.03.2006 which 

is as follows:-

 "Shopkeepers are not ready to honour their offer given before 

 this Court and they are not prepared to pay the amount of 

 premium as agreed by them on 19.01.2005. They have 

 deposited only one installment of Rs. 25,000/- and they have 

 not deposited the remaining three installments. Though, 

 vide order dated 08.07.2005, the shopkeepers were directed 

 to deposit the second installment, but they have not done so, 

 which shows that the shopkeepers are not willing to 

 cooperate and now they have applied for exemption.

 In the circumstances, petition is required to be heard finally.

 In the meantime, the Municipal Corporation shall auction 

 the shops, which shall not be finalized, so that the court will 

 be in a position to know the actual rental value of each shop. 

 The auction shall be for the area of shop only and the 

 encroached verandah shall not be auctioned which shall be 

 clarified in the auction notice and the Corporation will be at 

 liberty to remove the encroached area.

 List the petition finally before appropriate Bench, as prayed 

 for by the counsel for the petitioners, in the week 

 commencing 1st May, 2006. It is directed that before the 

 date of hearing, Municipal Corporation shall submit the 

 price offered for each shop and the State shall also submit 

 the valuation report of each shop."

 17

20) On 09.02.2007, the Court recorded that:

 "Shri Bidua (counsel for Respondent No.2) prays for time to 

 submit verification report of the photographs filed by Shri 

 V.K. Bharadwaj counsel for intervenors and shopkeepers 

 and to submit report about closing of verandah against the 

 shops." 

21) Again, on 02.03.2007, the High Court passed a brief 

order which is as follows: 

 "With the consent of the parties, it is directed that Shri 

 Sharma, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation will complete 

 the inviting process of tenders for the construction of new 

 market building at the place of old Gandhi Market on or 

 before 09.03.2007."

22) The order dated 20.04.2007 is very relevant which reads 

as under:-

 "For the construction of new market building at the place of 

 old Gandhi Market, the shop keepers have consented." 

 "Today, the Municipal Corporation has filed a compliance 

 report". With a view to complete the project and to remove 

 the day to day hurdles with the consent of the parties, we 

 constitute a Committee comprising of ....."

23) The following noting in the order dated 04.05.2007 by the 

High Court is also relevant which reads as under:-

 "Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the shop 

 keepers submitted that the shop keepers will not raise any 

 objection before the Committee regarding the construction of 

 the market."

 18

24) It is abundantly clear that from time to time, on different 

occasions with the consent of the parties, the construction of 

new Gandhi Market was discussed and a Committee was 

constituted after the order dated 20.04.2007. 

25) The High Court, on different occasions, took into 

consideration the objections and suggestions of the Director, 

Town and Country Planning Department, the Commissioner, 

Municipal Corporation, Principal Secretary, Housing 

Development and passed an order on 18.05.2007 which is as 

follows:- 

 "Today progress report along with minutes of the meeting of 

 the Committee dated 14.05.2007 has been filed, which is 

 taken on record and Corporation has also produced copy of 

 letter dated 15.05.2007 written by Joint Director, Town and 

 Country Planning Department to the Director for seeking 

 permission from the State. It is submitted that the Architect 

 has already submitted map as per advice of the Joint 

 Director, Town and Country Planning Department and the 

 matter has been referred to the Government for permission. 

 So far as the question of permission upto the height of 24 

 meter is concerned, that shall be obtained by the Municipal 

 Corporation and not by the Contractor. The Committee has 

 fixed the next date of meeting of 5th June, 2007. List this 

 case on 6th July, 2007. In the meantime, the State 

 Government shall take a decision on the permission and the 

 Committee shall also finalize the map and issue the tenders 

 for fixing the agency etc. During this period every effort 

 should be made to complete the formalities and process of 

 inviting tenders should also be started so that the 

 construction plan may be prepared. Next progress report 

 shall be submitted on 6th July, 2007. 

 19

The same order has been reiterated in the subsequent order 

dated 20.07.2007. On 27.07.2007, the High Court passed the 

following which reads thus:-

 "It is directed that Shri Batham will continue to co-ordinate 

 between the authorities and will see that the inspection and 

 report is submitted by the School of Planning and 

 Architecture, New Delhi as early as possible and the consent 

 is obtained from the Department of Town and Country 

 Planning as well as the State Government. He will also 

 submit the reply of the queries and fulfill all the conditions 

 which are necessary for the approval of the project. The 

 Corporation is directed to submit the further progress report 

 on 10.08.2007.

26) If we analyze the above-mentioned and various other 

orders, it would not be possible to conclude that the High 

Court over stepped its limit while giving directions in para 8 of 

the impugned order. As rightly observed by the High Court, it 

is the duty and responsibility of the Public Department of the 

State Government, Municipal Corporation to take all 

endeavour to save the town of Gwalior from encroachments 

and also easing the public utility system. The materials 

placed by the Municipal Corporation clearly show that Gandhi 

Market which is primarily a cloth market is established in the 

year 1952 is now in a very haphazard condition causing 

difficulty in the movement of public as well as of vehicles. It 

 20

was highlighted that in the day time as well as in the evening 

busy time, it takes hours together for the vehicles to pass from 

that area. Photographs were also shown to us. It is 

impossible for the public to even walk on the street. The shop 

keepers are dumping their products upon the street which is 

not permissible. The public are prevented from using the foot 

path/pavement meant for them. In such circumstances, a 

decision was taken to construct a multi-level parking-cum-

commercial complex. In this process of construction, it was 

planned to shift temporarily the present shop keepers to some 

other nearby places. 

27) It is further seen that the present commercial area of the 

appellants/shop keepers is 60 sq. ft. which has been 

converted by encroaching the area of verandah and converted 

the same into 90 sq. ft area. The new shop of 60 sq. ft. size is 

to be given to 252 present incumbents of Gandhi Market. It is 

highlighted that to construct the building to the height of 12.5 

metres having 3 layers of basement for parking, the ground 

floor shall have 252 shops which shall be allotted to the 

 21

present incumbents of Gandhi Market and other floors shall 

be at the disposal of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior.

28) In view of the various orders passed by the High Court on 

the basis of consensus of the parties, more particularly, with 

the consent of the shop keepers, a Committee was appointed 

and a direction was issued for providing alternate place to the 

shop keepers till new construction being completed in the 

existing place and all of them were assured of accommodation 

in the ground floor of the new market complex, we are of the 

view that the ultimate directions issued in the final order 

dated 18.01.2008 by the High Court cannot be faulted with. 

29) The next submission of Mr. Gupta relates to applications 

filed by the appellants before the High Court for recalling the 

order dated 24.03.2006 and also seeking clarification on the 

same order as well as another application for refund of the 

amount deposited. Admittedly, one application was rejected 

on 05.05.2006 and it is not clear how the other applications 

are kept pending even after disposal of main writ petitions. 

About the amount deposited by the shop keepers, both the 

senior counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation 

 22

submitted that the said amount was not towards adjustment 

of construction charges but the same would be adjusted 

towards future licence fees. In the light of the same, there is 

no substance in the contention relating to filing of applications 

about various orders passed by the High Court. As rightly 

pointed out by Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, learned senior counsel for 

the Municipal Corporation even after the so-called 

applications, the consent to the process of a new market place 

continued and this is evident from the orders of the High 

Court dated 02.03.2007, 20.04.2007 and 04.05.2007. It is 

also brought to our notice that some applications that were 

made in June/July to recall the order dated 04.05.2007 were 

not pressed. In view of the same, we are unable to accept the 

claim of the learned senior counsel for the appellants. 

30) In view of our factual conclusion based on the materials 

placed by both the parties as well as various orders of the High 

Court, we feel that there is no need to advert to various 

decisions relied on by the learned senior counsel for the 

appellants.

 23

31) In the light of the above discussion, we are satisfied that 

various directions in para 8 of the impugned order of the High 

Court cannot be faulted with and according to us it safeguards 

not only the interest of the Municipal Corporation, general 

public but also all the 252 shop keepers who are running their 

business in the Gandhi Market. Further, it was not disputed 

before the High Court that Gandhi Market became quite old 

and market is fully congested and there is no space for 

parking. That was the reason the High Court specifically 

recorded a finding in para 7 that:

 "..... under changed circumstances that all the parties 

 including the shop keepers have agreed for construction of 

 new Gandhi Market building in the place of old Gandhi 

 Market building. This Court has already in the interest of all 

 the parties and the citizens of Gwalior City, directed through 

 interim orders for construction of a new market building and 

 has also constituted a Committee to see that new Gandhi 

 Market building is constructed and after construction, the 

 existing shop keepers were also settled therein. .... ...." 

We fully endorse the above view. Though an argument was 

advanced that the permission granted by Joint Director, Town 

and Country Planning, Gwalior in his proceeding dated 

05.12.2007 to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, 

Gwalior regarding reconstruction of Gandhi Market, Gwalior 

 24

was objected to by the Director and further approval of the 

State Government is required, inasmuch as the Joint Director 

is the officer competent, we hope and trust that no fresh 

construction would be carried out without the authority of the 

person concerned and contrary to the statutory 

provisions/regulations, accordingly, we reject the said 

contention also. 

32) Under these circumstances, we are unable to agree with 

any one of the submissions made by the appellants, on the 

other hand, we are in entire agreement with the stand of the 

respondents and reasonings and conclusion arrived at by the 

High Court. We direct the respondents, particularly, the 

Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and the officers concerned to 

implement the directions of the High Court within the 

parameters of the statutory provisions considering the interest 

of the general public as well all the shop keepers of the 

existing market. In view of the disposal of the civil appeals, 

Municipal Corporation is free to proceed with the construction 

as directed in the impugned order of the High Court and in the 

light of the above observations, as early as possible, and we 

 25

also direct that all the directions of the High Court shall be 

adhered to. It is further directed that as soon as construction 

up to ground floor level is completed along with the required 

parking facilities at the basement level those shops are to be 

allotted to the old shop keepers in the Gandhi Market within a 

period of six months after completion of such construction, 

unless an individual shop keeper becomes ineligible for the 

known reason. 

33) Consequently, all the appeals fail and are accordingly 

dismissed. In view of the same, interim stay granted by this 

Court on 17.10.2008 shall stand vacated. No order as to costs. 

 ..........................................J. 

 (P. SATHASIVAM) 

 ..........................................J. 

 (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN) 

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 30, 2011. 

 26

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,199 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: