Mohinder Singh vs New Delhi Municipal Committee
1992 Latest Caselaw 184 Del

JUDGMENT

Sat Pal, J.

(1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8th June, 1981 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi.

(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted a shop bearing No.2, Palika Dham Market Lane, New Delhi on 13th March, 1979. The petitioner is stated to be in possession of letter of allotment, no objection certificates from various authorities for running the trade of refrigeration and water cooling which includes the operation of trollies. It is alleged that some of the officers of the defendant Committee came to the shop of the petitioner on 17th April, 1980 and threatened that the allotment of the petitioner would be cancelled and the operation of the trollies would be stopped. Faced with this threat the petitioner filed a suit bearing No.197/80 for permanent injunction on 18th April, 1990. In the suit it was, inter alia, prayed that the defendant Committee and its employees etc., be restrained from interfering with the allotment of the premises and operation of the trade of refrigration and water cooling in the said shop and operation of the trollies and also from disconnecting water, electricity and power connection from the parking site meant for the said trollies. Along with the plaint the petitioner also filed true copies of documents such as letter of allotment, no objection certificates issued by the New Delhi Municipal Committee for allotment for running of the above mentioned trade, latest electricity bill duly paid and no objection certificate for operating trollies. After perusing the aforesaid documents and hearing the counsel for the parties the learned trial judge on 11th August, 1990 granted injunction in favor of the petitioner restraining the defendant committee from interfering with the allotment of shop No.2, Palika Dham Market Lane, New Delhi and the operation of the trade of refrigration, cooling of water etc., as prayed for in the application for stay.

(3) The New Delhi Municipal Committee challenged the abovementioned order passed by the learned trial court before the District Judge and the Additional District Judge vide his order dated 29th June 1981 accepted the appeal filed by the New Delhi Municipal Committee and set aside the order passed by the learned trial court. The aforesaid order has been challenged in this revision petition.

(4) Mr. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reasons given by the learned Additional District Judge for setting aside the order of the learned trial court is contrary to the facts on record. He further contended that the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that no cause of action existed and the petitioner has filed the application for stay on frivolous ground to prevent the New Delhi Municipal Committee from proceeding in accordance with law has come out to be false inasmuch as the stay was vacated by learned Additional District Judge, the New Delhi Municipal Committee disconnected the electricity of the petitioner on 7.7.1981. It was only by an order of this Court in this revision petition that the respondent committee was directed to release the water trollies and restore the electricity power connection of the petitioner vide order dated 4th August, 1981 which was confirmed on 31st August, 1981.

(5) I have perused the documents filed along with the plaint and after hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner I find that the contention of Mr. Nigam has force. From the order passed' by the learned additional district judge it is evident that the. learned additional district judge has proceeded on a wrong assumption that there was no cause of action at all for grant of injucntion. In fact as stated hereinabove, the threat given by some of the officers of the defendant Committee came to be true on 7.7.1981 when the electricity of the petitioner was disconnected and the water trollies were impounded. Further he submitted that the action of the New Delhi Municipal Committee is contrary to'the section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as no notice was given to the petitioner before'disconnecting 'the electricity.

(6) In view of the above discussion the revision is allowed and the order dated 29th June 1981 passed by the learne Additional District Judge is set aside and the order dated 11th August, 1980 passed by the learned trial judge is restored.

(7) Mr. Vijay Gupta, the learned counsel for the New Delhi Municipal Committee, submitted that the petitioner is not storing clean water in the trollies. However, I do not find any document in support of this submission. The respondent will, however, be at liberty to move the trial court on this point for appropriate orders.

(8) The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

(9) The trial court record be sent back immediately.