1 2025:CGHC:14111 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2517 of 2019 1. Chandrashekhar Kesharwani S/o Heeralal Aged About 48 Years R/o Bhogahapara, Shiorinarayan, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 2. Rupesh Kumar S/o Vinod Keshwarwani Aged About 33 Years R/o Bhogahapara, Shiorinarayan, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Development Department, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Collector Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Shiorinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 1 : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. and 2 For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24. 03.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate direction against the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.26 11:16:29 +0530 2 respondents that the petitioner are entitle to gate allotment of shop in the proposed Shopping Complex situated at premises of old Nagar Panchayat Shiorinarayan. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate writ/direction that the auction of shop under proposed Shopping Complex situated at premises of old Nagar Panchayat Shiorinarayan does not affect the right of allotment of shop in favor of petitioner. 10.3 Issue any other order, direction, Writ which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper pro in the interest of justice.” 2. It is pleaded in the writ petition that a decision was taken by the respondent authorities regarding the construction of new shops near the office of Nagar Panchayat, Shiorinarayan. The petitioners surrendered their earlier shops and also deposited the earnest amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 6,250/-, respectively with the Office of respondent No. 3 for allotment of new shops, but till date, no action has been taken. 3. Mr. Anand Kesharwani, counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that earlier, the petitioners were running small shops and they were assured by respondent No. 3 for allotment of new shops, and therefore, they surrendered their old shops in favour of respondent No. 3 and also deposited the earnest amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 6,250/-, respectively. He would further submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to allot shops to the petitioners or to refund the earnest amount with interest. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Anmol Sharma, counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would submit that though the project was sanctioned, but later on, it was canceled and shops have not been constructed at the proposed site. With regard to the refund of the earnest amount, Mr. Sharma would submit that if 3 the petitioners make representations before respondent No. 3, an appropriate decision would be taken. 5. Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate, appearing for the State would endorse the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the project of the construction of new shops has already been canceled by respondent No. 3 and the said order has not been challenged by the petitioners in the present petition; therefore, no case is made out for interference. Further, the earnest amount was deposited by both petitioners for the allotment of new shops and that amount has not been refunded; therefore, the petitioners would be at liberty to make representation(s) before respondent No. 3 for the refund of the earnest amount with interest, and in turn, respondent No. 3 is directed to decide the representation(s) in an objective manner, preferably within a period of 90 days from today. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant