The High Court's power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be used for routine representations without establishing rights, and such abuse of judicial process should be rejected with exemplary costs.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 10.11.2021 and made in W.P.No.24044 of 2021.)

1. The Review application is filed to review the order dated 10.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.24044 of 2021.

2. The petitioner filed a writ petition for a direction to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.10.2021 for allotment of Shop No. from B/P-24 to T/A-P-4 on conversion in the light of W.P.No.4004 of 2000 order dated 08.03.2000.

3. This Court passed an order on 10.11.2021, as under:

“4. The High Court Cannot issue a direction in the form of recommendation, so as to direct the respondent to consider the case of Writ Petition. Consideration of a claim could arise only if the process commenced for such allotments of shops in a market or the place under the control of the CMDA. It is not as the any person can file a Writ Petition seeking a direction to consider the representation and by obtaining such an order get preference for allotment or otherwise. On most occasions, such a general direction issued by the High Courts to consider the representations are wrongly interpreted or implemented by the authorities at their whims and fancies, which causes prejudices to the other eligible persons and more so deprived the right of other eligible persons, who are also longing to get such allotment in accordance with the rules and regulations in force. Thus, even for issuing a direction to consider the representation, the rights of the persons, who are approaching the High Court in a Writ Petition has to be considered.

5. In the present case, the petitioner states that he should be given preference. Preferences or otherwise are to be granted only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules and not otherwise. Thus, this Court cannot issue any such direction to consider the representation. It is for the petitioner to submit an application in the event of any notification of such allotment or if he is otherwise eligible, the authorities are bound to follow the regulations scrupulously while taking decision in such matter.

6. With these observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.”

4. The petitioner filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.18 of 2022 and the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ appeal and granted liberty to maintain a review application against the order passed in the writ petition. Pursuant to the liberty, the petitioner has chosen to file the present Review Application.

5. The learned counsel for the review applicant mainly contended that this Court passed an order, granting liberty to the applicant to submit an application in the event of any notification for allotment of shop and if he is otherwise eligible. The authorities are bound to follow the regulations scrupulously while taking decision in such matters.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant referred the order passed in W.P.No.4004 of 2000 dated 08.03.2000, wherein, the learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order as follows:

“In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 16.02.2000. in future, if any shops fall vacant in any of the categories, the respondent would consider the request of the petitioner on preferential basis for allotment if they otherwise satisfy the requirements and pass orders according to law. Consequently, WMP is closed.”

7. The learned counsel for the review applicant further referred the order in another Division Bench in Review Application No.39 of 2009 dated 28.07.2009, wherein, the Division Bench has made an observation that “if they frame such scheme in future, the applicant is at liberty to apply, which is already stated in th