LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Thursday, September 1, 2011

social justice was done to the lease holders - 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.


                                                             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