LAXMAN SINGH SONKAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010281072021 2026:CGHC:39191
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4344 of 2021
AVINASH
SHARMA
1 - Laxman Singh Sonkar S/o Itwari Ram Sonkar Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward
No. 24, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
Digitally signed
by AVINASH
SHARMA
Date:
2026.09.09
15:03:40 +0530
2 - Lekhan Ram Dewangan S/o Gopal Ram Dewangan Aged About 45 Years R/o
307, Shiv Chouk Achhota, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
3 - Satyanarayan Sukalu Ram Sonkar Aged About 40 Years R/o Vindhyawasini
Ward, Ward No. 32, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
4 - Sant Ram Sonkar S/o Late Shri Jethu Ram Sonkar Aged About 41 Years R/o 95,
Risai Para, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
5 - Kailash Yadav S/o Bala Ram Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 01, School
Para, Hatkeshar, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
6 - Shiromani Rao S/o Late Shri Krishan Rao Ghorpade Aged About 44 Years R/o
Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
7 - Kuldeep Rao S/o Shobha Rao Aged About 41 Years R/o Amatalab Road,
Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.,
8 - Anusiya D/o Aatmaram Aged About 53 Years Ward No. 32, Dhamtari, District
Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Zila Krishi Upaj Mandi Board, Dhamtari, Through Its Secretary, Zila Krishi Upaj
Mandi Krishi Upaj Mandi Road, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
3 - Collector Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
4 - Gajendra Sonkar Shop No. 08, R/o Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
5 - Kashiram Sonkar Shop No. 09 And 10, Shyam Terai, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

2
6 - Prakash Pawar Shop No. 11, Shyam Terai, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Basant Rao Kridutt Shop No. 12, Shyam Terai, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
8 - Rohit Sonkar Shop No. 13, Shyam Terai, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
9 - Daulat Ram Jasuja Shop No. 14, Shyam Terai, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
10 - Satyavan Yadav Shop No. 15, Shyam Terari, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
11 - Umesh Sahu Shop No. 16, Shyam Terai, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
12 - Urmila Bai Sonkar Shop No. 17, Shyam Terai, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh,
Respondent Nos.4 to 12 R/o For Shap Wholesale Vegetable Mandi Complex, Shap
Kam Godown, Agricultural Produce Mandi, Shyam Terai, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vibhor Goverdhan appears on behalf of Shri
Basant Dewangan, Advocates.
For State : Shri Amit Nayak, PL.
For Respondent No.2 : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate.
For Respondent Nos.4
to 12
: Shri Rishabh Gupta appears on behalf of Shri Anurag
Singh, Advocates.
S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
07/09/2026
1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
10.1. That The records pertaining to the fresh auction and
previous allotment proceedings in dispute may be called for
kind perusal of this court.
10.2. That, the impugned notice dated 15.09.2021 and
auction made in names of respondents no.4 to 12, may
kindly be set aside and quashed also the respondents may
kindly be directed to allow the petitioners to run their shops
peacefully, by the Hon'ble Court.
10.3. That the respondents maybe directed that no third
party interest by way of auction or dispossessing the
petitioners from their shops may be created, by the Hon'ble
Court.
10.4. That any other relief which this Hon'ble court may

3
deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are vegetable vendors
operating their shops in the premises of the Krishi Upaj MandiSamiti
Dhamtari, since last more than 6 years. Earlier petitioners used to operate
their business in Gumtis at Gole Bazaar, Dhamtari. Due to congestion in
traffic and increase in population, all the vegetables vendors were shifted to
Itwari Bazar, Dhamtari. Again due to traffic problem, the petitioners were
uprooted from Itwari Bazaar. Due to change in place of business twice the
vegetable business of the petitioners was materially hampered and therefore
petitioners pressed their demand for allotment of permanent location to
continue with vegetable vending in Dhamtari. Finally, petitioners along with
23 other persons were allotted shops to run their vegetable business in Navin
Mandi premises, Shyamtarai, Dhamtari. The shops in the Mandi Premises
was meant for shop cum godown and petitioners were allotted shop numbers
08 to 17, respectively. The instant petition has been filed against the
issuance of the impugned notice for auction of the shops which are allotted to
the petitioners without cancelling the earlier allotment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned auction notice
dated 15.09.2021 is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the facts and
circumstances of the case. It is contended that the action of the respondent
authorities in issuing the said auction notice is without any basis and in
violation of the settled principles of law. It is further submitted that pursuant to
the advertisement and the allotment letter dated 21/11/1997, the petitioners
had been validly allotted Shops. The petitioners have duly paid the entire
consideration amount as well as the rent as required under the terms of

4
allotment. Learned counsel emphasizes that there is no documentary
evidence on record to establish that any rent remains outstanding against the
petitioners. Despite this, the respondent authorities have, in a wholly arbitrary
and fanciful manner, issued the impugned auction notice alleging non-
fulfillment of certain conditions. Learned counsel further contends that before
issuing such a drastic order of auction, the respondents were under a legal
obligation to issue a notice to the petitioner, call upon them to explain or
substantiate the allegations, and conduct a proper inquiry into the matter.
However, no such opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the
petitioners. The impugned notice neither discloses the period for which the
alleged rent is due nor provides any supporting documents, thereby
rendering the action violative of principles of natural justice. It is also
submitted that the lease period has not expired and the petitioners, having
fulfilled all conditions of allotment, cannot be evicted in such an arbitrary
manner. It is also argued that the impugned notice has been issued without
proper authority and sanction. As per the governing framework, the Collector,
being the competent authority and the one who originally sanctioned the
allotment, is required to approve such action. Furthermore, no committee has
been constituted or approval obtained for initiating proceedings against the
petitioners. Thus, the impugned action, taken by an authority subordinate to
the competent authority, is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law.
Learned counsel further submits that the impugned notice is vague and
ambiguous, as it fails to specify the duration of the alleged outstanding rent
or the specific clauses of the allotment terms that have been violated. No
prior notice, warning, or communication was ever issued to the petitioner

5
alleging breach of any condition. It is contended that since the allotment was
made under a State instrumentality, the respondents are expected to act in a
fair, transparent, and reasonable manner, which has clearly not been
adhered to in the present case. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned
auction notice infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as it unjustly restricts their
right to carry on their lawful business.
4. Learned counsel for appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 , on
instructions, submits that impugned order has rightly been passed and
requires no interference.
5. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 to 12 submits that the respondents
are auction purchasers and they have participated in the auction proceedings
and since the bid of the respondents was the highest one thereafter, the
respondents have deposited the huge amount. The auction proceedings
have been concluded, the agreement is yet to be executed. The auction
proceedings were initiated in accordance with law. The petitioners have not
participated in the auction proceedings, though they were aware in respect of
the auction notice issued by the authorities. No right has been created in
favour of the petitioners and it was only a temporary order of allotment.
6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the
material available on record, this Court proceeds to examine the controversy
involved in the present writ petition.
7.
Admittedly, the undisputed position emerging from the record is that the
petitioners were allotted Shop Nos. 08 to 17 in the Navin Mandi premises,
Shyamtarai, Dhamtari, pursuant to the allotment proceedings undertaken by

6
the respondent authorities. The petitioners claim to have been in possession
of and carrying on their vegetable business from the said shops for several
years. It is also the specific case of the petitioners that the entire
consideration amount as well as the rent payable under the terms of
allotment has been duly deposited by them. The respondents, while
defending the impugned auction notice, have alleged non-compliance with
the conditions of allotment and have contended that the allotment in favour of
the petitioners was only temporary in nature. However, from the record, it is
evident that prior to issuance of the impugned notice, no show-cause notice
was served upon the petitioner, nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded
to them to explain the alleged default.
8. It is a settled principle of law that any administrative or quasi-judicial action
having civil consequences must adhere to the principles of natural justice.
The requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing before
passing an adverse order is not an empty formality but a mandatory
safeguard to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in decision-
making.
9. In the present case, the impugned auction notice has the effect of depriving
the petitioner of their possession and means of livelihood, and therefore,
strict compliance with the principles of natural justice was incumbent upon
the respondent authorities. In my view, the impugned auction notice
(Annexure P/1) has been issued in clear violation of the principles of natural
justice, inasmuch as no prior notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to
the petitioners.
10.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the

7
impugned auction notice dated 15.09.2021 is hereby quashed. However, it
is made clear that respondent authorities shall be at liberty to initiate fresh
proceedings in accordance with law, if so advised. In the event such
proceedings are initiated, the respondents shall ensure that due opportunity
of hearing is afforded to the petitioners, and a reasoned order is passed
strictly in accordance with law.
11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed
of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash