Delhi High Court
Hazari Lal Jain & Brothers And Ors. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 11 October, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993 IVAD Delhi 361, 52 (1993) DLT 526
Author: G C Mital
Bench: G Mittal, D Bhandari
JUDGMENT
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.
(1) The petitioners have filed this petition with the prayer that respondents No. 3 and 4 or their employees, associates and agents be restrained from carrying on the business activity in front of shop No. 455, KatraMohan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
(2) The petitioner-firm is carrying on its business of retail, of ladies garments at 455, Chandni Chowk, Delhi under the name and style of M/s Hazari Lal Jain & Bros., and Shri Lal Chand Jain and Shri Lalit Mohan Jain are the partners of the aforesaid concern. It is alleged in the petition that respondents 3 and 4 who do not hold any Tehbazari and/or any license from respondent No. 1/Municipal Corporation of Delhi, have started blocking the entire entrance to the shop of the petitioner for about last 1/2 months by placing two tables starting from the corner of the foot-path which in itself is 10' X 12' wide. The Approximate size of each table is 6'x4'. RespondentsNo. 3 and 4 place ready-made shirts on the said tables and sell them. .The respondents No. 3 and 4 with the help of their servants, associates and employees start functioning at 10 a.m. in the morning and function till late in the night. The respondents 3 and 4's. activities are causing great inconvenience for the customers to pass and repass through the said passage and to enter the shop of the petitioners.
(3) It is also alleged in the petition that the business activities of respondents 3 and 4 which are being carried out in totally unauthorised manner have become a cause of big public nuisance and obstruction. Public at large are facing great inconvenience on that account. The petitioner has brought to our notice Sections 321,411 and 420. The same are reproduced as under:--
"SECTION 321 : (1) No person shall, except with the permission of the Commissioner and on payment of such fee as he in each case thinks fit, place or deposits upon any street, or upon any openchannel, drain or well in any street or upon any public place anystall, chair, branch, box, ladder, bale or other thing whatsoever so as to form an obstruction thereto or encroachment thereon.(2) Nothing in Sub-section (1) applies to Building materials."
"SEC.411 (1). No animal or article shall be sold or exposed for sale within a distance of one hundred yards of any Municipal market or licensed private market without the permission of the Commissioner.(2) Any person contravening the provisions of Sub-section(1) and any animal or article exposed for sale by such person maybe summarily removed under the orders of Commissioner or any officer or employee of the Corporation appointed by him in thisbehalf".
"SEC.420. No person shall without or otherwise than inconformity with the terms of a license granted by the Commissioner in this behalf;(a) hawk or expose for sale in any place any article whatsoever whether it be for human consumption ornot;(b) use in any place his skill in any handicraft or for rendering services, to and for the convenience of the public for the purposes of gain or making a Jiving."
(4) It is submitted that the respondents 3 and 4 are carrying on their business in totally illegal and irregular manner in connivance with otherrespondents. This Court issued notice on the petition to the respondents.Reply was filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 and 4. In the reply, the respondents denied that they are blocking are entire entrance to the shop of the petitioner by placing two tables of 6'x4', or keeping a particular quantity of shirts on those tables. The respondents have taken a novel plea that they are employees of Padam Chand, who is squatting on the alleged site and doing the business. It is further submitted that the matter pertaining to Padam Chand is pending adjudication by the Supreme Court.
(5) The petitioner has blanced on record photographs which clearly show that exactly in front of the shop a table has been placed and on that table,respondents 3 and 4 are carrying on the business.
(6) Respondents 3 and 4 admittedly have no legal right whatsoever to squat in Chandni Chowk, one of the business centres of Delhi, without any permission from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Admittedly, no Tehbazari or license has been issued to respondents 3 and 4 to squat on the premises in question. No protection whatsoever can be granted to respondents 3 and 4 even if they are employees of Padam Chand, The respondentsNo. 3 and 4 cannot take shelter in the garb of the pendency of the writ petition of Padam Chand, or the matter is pending adjudication. It employees, agents and representatives of hawkers and squatters are .given this kind of protection, then, there would hardly by any space for passing and repassing by the padestrians. It is bound to cause great inconvenience to public at large. The Supreme Court in she Constitution Bench Judgment Saudan Singh v. N.D.M.C. & Others, 46 (1992) Dlt, 671 (SC) has laid down guidelines for hawkers and squatters.
(7) Apart from causing great inconvenience to the public at large placing of the table by respondents 3 and 4 in front of the petitioners' shop infringes the petitioner's rights to carry on his business peacefully.
(8) In these circumstances, we are left with no option but to allow the writ petition and direct the respondents 3 and 4 to remove their table/tables in front of the petitioners' shop at 455, Chandni Chowk, Delhi frorthwith.
(9) Respondents 1 and 2 shall ensure compliance of the orders of thisCourt.
(10) In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.Petition allowed.
