Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48899-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37997 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ratan Bhatia And 14 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akanksha Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra,C.S.C.,Shyam Mani Shukla Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6. 2. The writ petition is being filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing a communication dated 10.10.2023 issued by the respondent no.6, the Chief Revenue Assessment Officer, Nagar Nigam, Moradabad and an order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner, Moradabad. 3. The order of the Additional Municipal Commissioner dated 24.01.2023 is an order, whereby a representation made by the petitioners has been rejected. The letter dated 10.10.2023 is a communication of this order to the petitioners. This communication states that the order had earlier been provided to the petitioners, who after reading the same, refused to accept it. Therefore, the order of 24.01.2023 has also been annexed with the communication. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that 52 persons, who are alleged to be members of Stall Holders Committee, Railway Station, Moradabad were licencees/allottees of space allotted by the Nagar Palika, Moradabad for setting up kiosks of a specified size on Railway Station Road, Moradabad. Out of these 52 stall holders 40 of them have been rehabilitated and were allotted regular shops. It is only 13 persons, who have been deprived of the said rehabilitation. The rehabilitation was carried out in pursuance of a resolution in meeting held on 08.02.1990 by a Committee constituted by a Government Order. It was resolved in the meeting to allot the stall holders alternative stalls in the town hall area of Moradabad. The 13 persons in this writ petition were to be rehabilitated as soon as alternative accommodation became available in the form of pacca shops. 5. The stand of the respondents is that in the year 2022-23, shops were constructed and same were offered to the petitioners, who have not accepted the same. In any case their licence granted prior to 1990 under which they were operating the kiosk has expired. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that 40 similarly situated shops keepers who had been rehabilitated consequent to the Resolution passed in the meeting held in 1990 were so rehabilitated on very nominal payment. A much larger and a huge amount ranging from 7 to 8 lacs is being demanded from the petitioners. 7. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it transpires that the petitioners are claiming parity with the 40 persons, who had been rehabilitated in the year 1990. The 13 petitioners had been left out because no alternative pacca stalls to rehabilitate they were available. 8. Learned counsel for the parties are not at issue that such pacca shops being offered to petitioners had been constructed in the year 2022, whereafter, the same were offered to the petitioners, but have not been accepted by them. 9. As noticed above, the petitioners want rehabilitation on the same terms as the other 40 person were rehabilitated in the year 1990. Such rehabilitation at that point of time was on the payment of Rs. 30,000/- only, while now the respondents are demanding 7 to 8 lacs from each person for allotting a pacca shop to them. 10. In our consideration and since it is admitted that the shops being offered to the petitioners are newly constructed shops, which construction has been completed around 2022, the petitioners cannot claim parity. The cost of construction has increased multi-fold since the year 1990 and parity is being claimed after a lapse of more than 30 years. 11. In this situation parity exists only to the extent that the respondents are prepared to rehabilitate the petitioners. The issue as on date pertains to the amount payable for allotment of the stalls/shops to the petitioners which shops are newly constructed and must have entailed substantial cost in their construction. 12. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that they are entitled to parity with 40 persons rehabilitated in the year 1990 as regards the amount paid by them for allotment of shops in their favour as the respondents are part of a Welfare State, does not appeal to the Court. 13. It is no doubt true that in a welfare State the interest of the general public or for a class thereof is material but when new shops have been constructed, necessarily at a considerable higher cost than the shop offered and accepted by the other similarly situated persons, then even while functioning as a Welfare State expenses have necessarily been incurred and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents are acting arbitrarily. Moreover, the respondents are following the resolution for providing shops to the petitioners. 14. Looking at the existing construction cost and the prevailing rentals etc., it cannot be said that the amount being demanded by the petitioners is exorbitant or arbitrary. 15. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioners have been enjoying an interim order in the petition. They are admittedly using the space they were earlier using and such use has continued for 30 years. 16. Under the circumstances, therefore, no equity lies in favour of the petitioners especially when this Court has already come to the conclusion that the amount being demanded by the respondents is neither arbitrary nor exorbitant. 17. The impugned order dated 24.01.2023 also records that the kiosks of the 13 petitioners are on the roadside in a very busy and congested area and that there is an emergent need for road widening to ease the congestion. Under the circumstances, the removal of the petitioners from the place where there kiosks are alleged to be operating, as on date, is in public interest. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any good ground to interfere. 19. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners, in case they so desire to make the requisite payments demanded from them for allotment of shops in their favour. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Mayank Digitally signed by :- MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad