Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondents.
2. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 23.5.2014 in W.P.(C).No.5345 of 2014 by which judgment, the Writ Petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed. The appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'writ petitioners'), had filed the Writ Petition praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the direction contained in Exhibit P7 notice issued by the Panchayat to vacate the shop rooms occupied by the writ petitioners. The Panchayat decided to demolish the construction and provide an alternative accommodation to the petitioners in the Community Hall, where new shop rooms were proposed to be constructed. A resolution was passed by the Panchayat that the writ petitioners be offered shops in the Community Hall at the lowest bid, which is received with regard to other shops, which shall be settled by auction. The writ petitioners initially gave their consent for accepting the shops at the alternative place. However, they were communicated that the rate of rent would be ₹ 7,700/- for the rooms being the lowest bid amount, but the writ petitioners did not accept or occupy the shops. The writ petitioners were issued notice to vacate the premises. Then they filed the Writ Petition.
3. The learned Single Judge considered the submissions of the writ petitioners and dismissed the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge noticed in the judgment that the petitioners were granted licence to continue in the shop rooms till 31st March, 2014 and they had no right thereafter to occupy the shops as per the agreement.
4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that the rate of rent, which was offered to the writ petitioners to occupy new shops at the Community Hall, was excessive. He submits that it was understood that the writ petitioners shall be offered shops at a reasonable rent. As per the resolution of the Panchayat, the rate of rent was fixed at the lowest bid, which was received by auction. According to the Municipality, ₹7,700/- was the lowest bid amount. We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition.
5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners lastly contended that the learned Single Judge has allowed three months time to vacate the shop rooms, which time may be extended. The judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge on 23.5.2014 and the period allowed by the learned Single Judge has already come to an end.
6. Looking into the facts of the case and the prayer made by the writ petitioners, we observe that in the event the writ petitioners file an undertaking before the Panchayat within two weeks from today to hand over vacant possession on or before 30th November, 2014, the writ petitioners shall be allowed to continue in occupation till 30th November, 2014. Continuance of the premises by the writ petitioners shall be subject to payment of rent.
Subject to the above observation, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
ASHOK BHUSHAN ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE vgs1/10/14 A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE