Delhi High Court
Praveen Kumar vs N.D.M.C. And Another on 31 July, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 (59) DRJ 627
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.
2. Notice in this case was issued on the limited question as to why the respondent/NDMC should not conspire the representation of the petitioner for grant of toleration permission, to use as per the Thareja Committee recommendations.
3. Pursuant to the notice issued, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Committee has duly considered the matte and taken a decision, as communicated vide its letter No. D/755/DA(Thareja)/Enforcement dated 21.5.2001. The Committee by the said letter has intimated the rejection of the Tehbazari permission to the petitioner to continue to sell the Pan, Bidi, Cigarettes etc. at the site near Baroda House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the said letter on the ground that the petitioner's case was an unfortunate one. The Thareja Committee had rejected his case for failure to prove continuous squatting for a short period of two years, in the entire span of over 10 years. Learned counsel next contended that the reason given in para 5 of the said letter by the respondents that the petitioner had failed to challenge the rejection by the Committee before the Chaturvedi Committee, is misconceived inasmuch as Chaturvedi Committee was not entrusted with the task of hearing any challenges to the decision of Thareja Committee. The Chaturvedi Committee was entrusted the task of merely enforcing the recommendation of the Thareja Committee.
5. Learned counsel further contended that the case of those unauthorised squatters, who had been removed, after the rejection of the toleration permission was distinguishable.
6. On a consideration of the entire matter, I find that the NDMC has duly considered the recommendations made by the Thareja Committee and reached a conclusion that toleration permission for use was not warranted in this case. The Committee has duly given the reasons for the said conclusion. It is not in dispute that the petitioner failed to establish his continuous occupation, which would have entitled him to Tehbazari permission. The Committee has also noted that the action taken by it in rejecting the toleration permission was in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others . Further it was intended to remove any encroachments which hindered smooth flow off traffic in the NDMC area. Besides the Committee has observed that no new Tehbazari or toleration permission for use had been granted by the said Committee anywhere in this area. In these circumstances, the challenge to the rejection fails. The writ petition is dismissed.
