Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45975 of 2008 Petitioner :- Mohmmad Jamil Respondent :- The Nagar Nigam And Others Petitioner Counsel :- K.K. Dubey Respondent Counsel :- K.N. Saksena,S.C.,S.P. Shukla Hon'ble Vijay Manohar Sahai,J.
Hon’ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri K.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Shukla,
learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1to3.
The shop in dispute was allotted to the petitioner Mohammad Jamil and
Nafees which is clear from the original copy of the agreement which has been
filed by the learned counsel for the respondents alongwith their counter
affidavit. The petitioner has also filed his licence as annexure 7 to the writ
petition which demonstrates that the petitioner is having licence to run
restaurant and sell chicken in his restaurant. The respondents have cancelled
the allotment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has sub-let the
shop to Nafees. Nafees was the partner alongwith the petitioner with whom
the respondents have earlier entered into an agreement on 3.8.1998 by
depositing Rs.10,000/- with respondents. Rent receipts (Annexures no. 4,5 &
6 to the writ petition) have also been issued by the respondents in the name of
Mohammad Jamil and Nafees.
Learned counsel for the respondents has urged that he has filed original
photocopy of the agreement which does not bear the signature of the officer.
It is a fraud played by the Nagar Nigam on the petitioner. If the officer of the
respondents have not signed the agreement it will not make the agreement
null and void because once Nagar Nigam has accepted the amount under
agreement and also accepted the rent of the shop then the respondents officer
and his clerk would be responsible but the petitioner would not be paying the
fraud played by the respondents.
In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 5.7.2008 passed by the
respondents cancelling the licnece of the petitioner cannot be maintained. In
the agreement there is no bar that the petitioner cannot run his restraurant and
sell chicken or mutton. In absence of any bar in the agreement it is open for
the petitioner to run the restaurant.
In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 5.7.2008
passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) is quashed. A
writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to get the agreement signed by
the competent officer forthwith. We further direct the respondents to remove
the seal of of the shop no. 13, Nehru Market, Jhansi of the petitioner.
Order Date :- 30.7.2010
P.P.