Ramesh Bhutani And Anr. vs Chairman, Ndmc And Ors.
2000 Latest Caselaw 1250 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner's grievance emanates out of the refusal of the NDMC to permit him the clubbing of two stalls. Petitioner was anxious for getting this clubbing permission since for a chemist shop he needs a minimum space of over 100 Sq.ft.

2. To come to the bare essentials, the permission has been refused by the NDMC on the ground that as per their policy, clubbing may be permitted only in cases on individual merit when it concerns stalls in market place. This again is made subject to payment of enhancement in licence fee by 30% in respect of each unit involved in the clubbing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner was always willing to pay the enhanced licence fee but clubbing was arbitrarily not permitted while it has been permitted in the case of stalls at Safdar Jung Hospital.

3. An earlier writ petition No. 5188/99 filed by petitioner was disposed of requiring the petitioner to submit his representation to the Authorities. Pursuant to the said writ petition, petitioner made his representation. This was followed by affording an opportunity of a personal hearing. Thereafter, impugned order dated 23.3.2001 was passed by the Director (Enforcement).

4. The impugned order is a reasoned one and it deals with all the contentions and submissions raised by the petitioner. The impugned order has reiterated the revised policy. It is observed therein that the instances to which the petitioner is referring where clubbing has been permitted, firstly relate to areas, which have been found to be market places and, therefore, clubbing could be permissible even under the revised policy. Moreover, it is stated that in the said cases permission was granted, prior to the present policy coming into force on 18.3 1999. The impugned order also records that although as per the respondent, there was no violation of the policy. In any case, violation or breach of policy will not entitle the petitioner to seek a negative enforcement under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

There is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed.