D.R. Sikka vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 1268 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. This order shall dispose of 7 writ petitions in which common issues arise. CW1690/2001 is taken up as the representative writ petition and the facts of this petition will be referred to. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that his application for grant of license to run a guest house in Old Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi has been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing), New Delhi. The rejection letter in CW1690/2001 is dated 01.03.2001. The same is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE: LICENSING: DELHI

No. 4830/DCP/Lic.(II) dated Delhi, the 1/3/2001

To, Sh. D.R. Sikka, Hotel Comfort Palace, 18/3, (Main Market) Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi

Subject: Regarding application for grant of license-to run guest house at premises No. 18/3, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.

Sir,

With reference to your application dated 27.10.1999 on the subject cited above, I am directed to say that your case for grant of license to run guest house at premises No. 18/3 (Main Mket.) Old Rajinder Ngr. ND has been processed and examined in the light of guidelines read with notification No. H/11017/7/91/DDIB dated 7.5.99 and D.O. Letter No. H/11017/DDVA/IB/Vol.II/3730/F dated 13/20112000 but the guest house not located on an exclusive 209 sq. mtrs. plot area.

Hence your application for grant of license to run guest house can not be considered and the same is rejected. You may, if needed, make a representation within 7 days.

Yours faithfully,

-sd-

(S.S. TYAGI) ACP/LIC.

FOR DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE LICENCING: DELHI

No. /DCP/Lic.(II) dated Delhi, the

Copy forwarded to the DCP/Central Distt. Delhi with one spare copy for delivery to the guest house owner under proper receipt which may please be sent to this office for record. Besides, legal action under Section 28/112 D.P. Act, 1978 may be taken on day to day basis in case the guest house is found running and also make request to the concerned court for its closure.

(S.S. TYAGI) ACP/LIC.

FOR DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE LICENCING: DELHI"

2. From the above rejection letter, it is apparent that the petitioner's application was rejected after the same had been examined in the light of the following documents:-

a) Guidelines;

b) Notification dated 07.05.1999; and

c) D.O. Letter dated 13/20.11.2000.

The exact reason for rejecting the application was that the guest house was not located on an exclusive 209 sq. mtrs. plot area.

3. The notification of 07.05.1999 that is referred to above is one issued under Section 11A of the DDA Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), whereby the Master Plan for Delhi was modified. Under the head of "Mixed Land Use", the following was incorporated:-

"Nursing Home, Guest House and Bank shall be allowed in residential plots of minimum size of 209 sqm. facing a minimum road width of 18 mtrs. wide (9 mtrs. in special area and 13.5 mtrs. in rehabilitation colonies) subject to the conditions laid down in the guidelines issued in this regard."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner earlier submitted that the petitioners' premises in all the petitions form part of rehabilitation colonies and, therefore, the guidelines as well as the D.O. Letter dated 13/20.11.2000, which only referred to special areas, would not govern the petitioners' case. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has given up this point and he has fairly conceded this point in view of the fact that in all the petitions the petitioners have residential plots having sizes far less than 209 sq. mtrs. In view of this statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it immediately becomes clear that all other arguments qua the validity of the guidelines and the D.O. Letter as well as non-application of mind on the part of the licencing authority do not arise at all. The first criterion that the petitioner has to satisfy is that the residential plot's size must, in the minimum, be an area of 209 sq. mtrs. This is not satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the present case and, therefore, the petitioners would have no case at all. The fact that the licencing authority also took into consideration the guidelines as well as the D.O. Letter is of no consequence because the notification dated 07.05.1999, which is a statutory notification, itself debars the petitioner from being entitled to any benefit there under. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that special areas defined under the Master Plan for Delhi only include the walled city and Karol Bagh area whereas the guidelines and D.O. Letter include Patel Nagar also which is just across the road from Old and New Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi. This argument of the petitioners is clearly untenable because the petitioners are not entitled to be granted any permission in view of the Master Plan as notified by the said statutory notification. If the guidelines and the D.O. Letter provide otherwise and are contrary to the said notification and Master Plan and some people have benefited under that, it cannot be a ground on which the petitioners can base their claims. If something is illegally or incorrectly granted to others, a person cannot use that to found a claim for himself on the same basis unless and until such person's claim is covered under the provisions of law itself. If he is not entitled to the same in his own right, the argument of discrimination would not be available to him. Accordingly, the petitioners cannot take advantage of this circumstance. The petitioners are clearly ineligible as their residential plot sizes are far less than 209 sq. mtrs. each. The licenses have rightly not been granted to them.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to file a representation before the authorities. No such liberty is required from this Court. It is always open to the petitioner to move a representation before the authorities for including Rajendra Nagar in a special area.

The writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Copy of this judgment be placed in each case.