Public policy mandates auctioning of government properties to maximize revenue, and long-term possession does not justify extension of allotment.

JUDGMENT :

M A CHOWDHARY, J.

01. Through the medium of this Letters Patent Appeal, judgment dated 29.01.2025 passed in OWP No. 1647/2015 titled “Surinder Sharma Vs. State & ors” whereby the petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, has been challenged.

02. The impugned judgment has been assailed on the grounds that the same is erroneous, perverse and contrary to the factual position and is required to be set aside; that the impugned judgment has been passed without hearing the appellant, who was respondent No. 6 in the writ petition as Mr. Ashok Basotra, Advocate, who appeared on his behalf, could not have appeared as he had never been authorized by him and the appellant had no knowledge about the pendency of the writ petition; that the impugned judgment has been passed on the basis of the judgment dated 26.07.2022 given by the writ court in the case titled “Kathua Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Kathua Vs. State & Ors” ( OWP No. 969/2013), however, the said judgment was not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case, as the same was distinguishable on facts as the petitioner, in that case, was never allotted a shop in the premises of the District Hospital, Kathua in accordance with any government order nor there was any allotment by any competent authority and the land was only earmarked for the said petitioner, who constructed the shop, out of his own funds and was paying monthly rent for the use and occupation of the said shop whereas, in the present case, the shop in question had been duly allotted to the appellant vide Government Order No. 118- HME of 1997 dated 05.02.1997 and the legal status of the appellant was squarely covered by the Government Order No. 492-HME of 2008 dated 17.06.2008; that the appellant was entitled as per the aforesaid Government Order No. 492-HME of 2008 dated 17.06.2008 to be considered for extension of another two years on payment of premium equivalent to 50% of the market price to be determined by the Standing Committee with 30% increase in rent within 30 days of issuance of Letter of Intent, which was not provided to the appellant; that otherwise there had been no loss to the public exchequer as the appellant had paid regular rent till 31.01.2025 to the respondent No. 4, in accordance with the market rate, which was revised after every two years in accordance with the Government Order and that there was no equitable consideration in passing the impugned order as the case of the appellant was squarely covered by the Government Order No. 492-HME of 2008 dated 17.06.2008.

03. Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Salil Gupta, Advocate appearing for the appellant, in line with the grounds taken in the appeal has vehemently argued that the appellant had been running the fair price shop in the premises of Sub District Hospital, Bishnah since 13.02.1997 and the agreement having been renewed from time to time raising the rent as well, therefore, the appellant had satisfied all the conditions of the Government Orders issued from time to time more so, Government Order No. 492-HME of 2008 dated 17.06.2008.

04. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant mainly is that as per the aforesaid Government Order of 2008, those who have got allotment without auction as is the case of the appellant, can be considered for extension for another two years, on payment of premium equivalent to 50% of the market price, to be determined by the Standing Committee, with 30% increase in rent within thirty days of issuance of Letter of Intent; that the extension shall be subject to the condition that the allottee shall give bank guarantee equal to the amount of premium for six years and undertaking on stamp papers to vacate the premises after the expiry of the extended period of allotment.

05. He has further argued that the appellant offers for being considered for extension of another two years on payment of the revised premium and the increase of rent as per the af