ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD

C.P NO.D-1359 of 2010

DATE                                     ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. FOR ORDERS ON MA NO.5710/10.

2. FOR ORDERS ON MA NO.5711/10.

3. FOR KATCHA PESHI.

4. FOR ORDERS ON MA NO.5712/10.

08-10-2010.

Mr. Noor Ahmed Memon, Advocate for Petitioner.

>>>>><<<<< 

1.         Granted.

2.         Granted subject to all just exceptions.

3.         Through this Petitioner, the petitioner has prayed as under:-

a).                               To direct the Respondent No.3 to grant the application dated 16-04-2008 moved by petitioner for change of stalls as Respondents have taken many steps regarding the change of departments policy, which can cause very dangerous effects over, the business of Petitioner in future.

b).                               To direct the Respondents, immediately change approved stalls No.6, 7 and 8 platform No.1 with vacated stalls No.24, 25, 26 platform No.1 for the best business of Petitioner, as petitioner has deposited amount Rs.100,000/- according to approved bid and he would be able to submit further Rs.3,26000/- in favour of Respondents.

c).                                To restrain the Respondents and their companion, agents, laborers not to pressurize the Petitioner regarding the start of business in the allotted stalls No.6, 7 and 8 in which petitioner has not yet been start his business, due to change of policy of Respondents regarding the trains till and not to create any 3^rd party interest regarding the stalls No. 24, 25, 26 which are position-ally vacated at present time and Petitioner who has been submitted its amount of Rs.100, 000/-  for the stalls No.6,7, 8 may be considered for the change of above.

d).                    Cost of the petition be borne by the Respondents.

e).                                Any other relief(s) which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in favour of the plaintiffs.

            It is inter alias contended vide order dated 26-11-2007 the Petitioner was allotted vending Stalls No.6, 7 & 8 situated at Platform No.1 of Hyderabad Railway Station for a period of one year. Per learned counsel though the Petitioner has deposited Rs.100,000/- as earnest money but till today neither the Stalls as mentioned above were handed over to him nor the Respondents accommodated him in lieu of those Stalls.

            Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, perused the petition and annexures.

            Upon perusal of allotment order dated 26-11-2007, it appears that allotment order was issued for a period of one year which probably expired in March 2008, however, till today Petitioner has not filed a suit for Specific Performance of Contract or Damages etc. The gist of the arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that till today the Stalls are not handed over to the petitioner, therefore, he has sustained a financial loss. We are not impressed by the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and do not find any merit in the petition and accordingly dismiss the same in limini, however, the Petitioner may approach the proper forum for redressal of his grievance subject to law if advised so.

JUDGE

                                                                                    JUDGE

A.C