Sports Plaza And Others vs M.C.D. And Anrs.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1375 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

Rule.

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

1. The petitioners M/s. Sports Plaza is a firm with Mr. Yogesh Kalra and Mr. Dinesh Kalra as partners. The petitioner firm and its partners have file this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a trading license to the petitioners as applied for vide application dated 29.11.1999. Petitioners also seek a writ for quashing the prosecution proceedings initiated by the respondents against the partners i.e. petitioners No.2 and 3 under Section 417, 430 and 461 of DMC Act.

2. The petitioners are carrying on business of trading in shoes, apparels, bags, and accessories under the name and style of M/s. Sports Plaza at 39, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Petitioners also have agreement with M/s. Reebok India Company and are selling their products as Consignee Agents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far back as 29.11.1999, the petitioners applied for grant of a trading license. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the said application was made by way of abundant caution and without prejudice to its rights and contentions that for the trade being carried out by them a license was really not required.

4. The petitioners were aggrieved as despite having completed all the formalities, respondents had kept the application of the petitioner pending and did not grant a license. Respondents on the other hand on 12.7.2000, initiated the proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate for prosecution of the petitioners as mentioned above.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first instance the license was not required, however, assuming the same was required, petitioners were eligible and duly met all the condition for issuance of license. This aspect need not detain us any further since the respondents on 12.9.2000, have granted the license. The license has been granted w.e.f. 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2001. In view of the license having been granted for the period 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2001, the continuance of proceedings before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for prosecution of the petitioner would be an exercise in futility and will serve no purpose.

6. Counsel for the respondent, Mr. R.D. Jolly, attempted to justify the continuation of the prosecution proceedings on the ground that on the date the prosecution was launched, an offence had been committed as petitioner did not possess a license. By way of illustration, he gave the example of unauthorised constructions, which were subsequently compounded. With respect the example cited, has no application. The legal effect of the retrospective grant of license would be that a deeming fiction is created of the party having the license on the relevant date.

7. In these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to quashing of the pending proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate, MCD, Green Park, New Delhi against Mr. Yogesh Kalra and Mr. Dinesh Kalra under Sections 417 and 430 of the Municipal Corporation Act. The said proceedings are herby quashed.

8. Writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.