1. The petitioner has sought direction to the respondents to allot a shop in Gandhinagar Township as per the Scheme introduced by the State Government for giving the benefits under the Patnagar Development Scheme. This very petitioner had earlier filed Special Civil Application No.8720 of 1997 for similar relief and this Court, vide order dated 17.8.1998, directed the competent authority to decide the application of the petitioner dated 18.11.1993 under the Scheme dated 1.11.1993 within a period of three months. It appears that pursuant to the above-said order, the competent authority, i.e. Collector of Gandhinagar District, has taken decision, which is found at Annexure-'H' (page 23) on 17.10.1998 and rejected the demand of the petitioner for allotment of shop, on the ground that father of the petitioner Shri Narsinh Shivsinh Vaghela was given benefit of service.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that under the Scheme, copy of which was not produced by the petitioner but is produced with the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner was entitled to more than one benefit. The petitioner has averred in the petition that the petitioner has been given only one benefit of residential plot in Gandhinagar but has not been given other benefit, though, as an affected person, the petitioner was entitled to one more benefit under the said Scheme. It is further the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner was never given benefit of service and a false fact is recorded in the communication dated 17.10.1998, at Annexure-'H'. The petitioner on this basis, therefore, claimed that he may be given one more benefit of allotment of shop in Gandhinagar Township under the Scheme.
3. Opposing the petition, affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondents is filed, wherein it is stated that under the Scheme, the petitioner was given residential plot admeasuring 135 Sq. Mtrs., in Sector 26 being Plot No.742/1. Such Plot is given to the petitioner as an affected person under Gandhinagar Capital Project. It is further stated in the affidavit that Shri Narsinh Shivsinh Vaghela, father of the petitioner, was given benefit of service and he was appointed as Mukkadum (Class-IV) in the office of the Executive Engineer, Patnagar Yojna, Peta Vibhag 24. It is further stated that Shri Narsinh Shivsinh Vaghela was given service as Project affected person, for which proper entry was made in the Identity Card which was issued to the project affected person. Thus, it is the stand of the respondents that since the petitioner was given benefit under the Scheme introduced by the Government, he is not entitled for any other benefit, as claimed by the petitioner in the petition.
4. It is required to be noted that the petitioner is claiming benefit under the Circular dated 14.10.1987. The petitioner had filed petition in the year 1998 almost after a period of more than 10 years. In the said petition, direction was given to the competent authority to decide the application of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said direction, the Collector had decided the application and denied the benefits to the petitioner on the ground that his father was already given benefit of service. With the affidavit-in-reply, one Identity card of the affected person is produced showing the name of the father of the petitioner and his other brothers, wherein it is mentioned that father of the petitioner Shri Narsinh Shivsinh Vaghela was given benefit of service. The petitioner has neither denied the statement made in the affidavit-in-reply nor disputed the entry made in the said Identity card of affected person, at Annexure-R-4. Therefore, in absence of any other material, it is not possible to believe that the father of the petitioner was not given benefit of service.
5. Even apart from the above, the petitioner after these many years cannot claim benefit on the basis of the Scheme introduced in the year 1987. The petitioner has not relied on any other circular or scheme. The petitioner has already got one benefit of residential plot. The Scheme of-course floated by the Government was for giving benefit to the affected persons but the petitioner as a matter of right cannot claim for allotment of shop under the said Scheme, that too approaching the Court after more than 10 years. In fact, if the petitioner was sure that his father was never given service, as stated by the deponent in the affidavit and as revealed in the communication dated 17.10.1998, the petitioner could have obtained concrete information from the concerned department, wherein his father was alleged to have been given benefit of service. This petition remained pending from 1998 and the petitioner has not gathered any other information either under Right to Information or through any other source so as to rebut the statement made in the communication dated 17.10.1998, except the bare statement in the petition. Even after the affidavit is filed dated 3.5.2011, the petitioner has neither disputed the statement made in the affidavit about the service benefit given to the father of the petitioner nor even has made any attempt to dispute the entry made in the Identity card of affected person wherein it is clearly stated that the father of the petitioner was given benefit of service.
6. For all the above-reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of allotment of shop as claimed by the petitioner under the above-mentioned Scheme. The petition is devoid of any merits and required to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
omkar Sd/-
(C.L. SONI, J.)