Delhi High Court
Harish Chawla & Another vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 15 July, 2008
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No.285/2008 & WP(C) No.3504/2008
1. LPA 285/2008
HARISH CHAWLA & ANOTHER ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Naresh K. Thanai, Advocate
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate
2. WP (C) 3504/2008
JAGMOHAN SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Naresh K. Thanai, Advocate
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate
Mr.Pushkar Sood with Mr.Anshuman Sood,
Advocates for DMRC
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the
judgment ?n
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?n
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?n
JUDGMENT
% 15.07.2008
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.
2. This appeal and the writ petition involve common questions
of fact and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The appellants in the appeal were allotted shop No.80 at
ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in lieu of shop No.25 by the respondent
vide letter dated 9th February, 2000. The petitioner in the writ
petition also was allotted a shop in the same complex being shop
No.83-A in lieu of his original shop No.18, Dbaha Bock in 1998.
4. According to the respondents these shops are at the entrance
from where buses enter to the complex and therefore they obstruct
the entry of buses thereby causing traffic congestion. Further, due
to lack of proper drainage system in these shops, unhygienic
condition prevails around these shops. The shops are structurally
unsafe and dangerous to the passengers entering the ISBT as well
as to the licensees and therefore the shops are to be dismantled as
per the plan to make convenient parking of buses as well as to
maintain cleanliness in the complex. The shop owners are being
allotted alternative shops in the DTC block itself which is very close
to the earlier shops and the distance between these shops is less
than hundred meters. The respondents states that they have taken
action against other shops also and one of these two shops has
already been demolished. It is stated that clause 24 of the licence
agreement provides that the licensor shall have a right to
terminate the licence after giving one month's notice without
assigning any reason thereof.
5. The decision to demolish the existing shops has been
challenged in the appeal and the writ petition. A Local
Commissioner was appointed by this Court by order dated 30th May,
2008 to inspect the site in question. He has submitted his report
dated 3rd June, 2008. As per the report the area of shop of No.80,
DTC Complex which is in possession of the appellants is 290 sq.ft.
(without chajja) and with chajja, 322 sq.ft. The area of the shop
No.83-A, DTC Complex, in possession of the writ petitioner is 130
sq.ft. The area of the alternative shops allotted to them is 118 sq.ft
without chajja and with chajja 135 sq.ft. The Local Commissioner
has reported that these shops are located at the entrance of the
complex. Shop No.83-A is located at the corner, just below the
bridge used for going to main ISBT from the local Interstate Bus
Terminal. Backside of the shops is just the at entrance of the local
Interstate Bus Terminal. The shops are located almost touching the
new platform constructed for the local buses and because of this,
the said platform cannot be used at all since no bus can be parked
near to the said part of the platform. It is further reported that
these shops are very old structures and in a dilapidated condition
that they may fall at any time. There is no drainage system
available to the said shops for discharging the used water or the
garbage collected there. Presently, the dirty water from threes
shops is flowing to the road at the entrance gate of the terminal
and due to this, unhygienic condition exists in the area
surrounding these shops. According to the Local Commissioner the
existence of these shops is also affecting the overall look of the
complex as they are standing in between the entrance road and
the platform constructed for the buses.
6. There is no dispute that the licence is liable to be terminated
after giving one month's notice. The respondents have offered
alternative shops to the appellants as well as the writ petitioner.
The grievance of the appellants is that the area of the existing
shops is 290 sq.ft as against which they have been given the new
shop with an area of 118 sq.ft. The appellants have cited certain
instances where the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation has given
equivalent area particularly in respect of Dhabha Block. The
appellants may make a representation to the competent authorities
for grant of additional area and in case such a representation is
made, it will be considered by the respondents on its own merits in
accordance with law.
7. As far as the writ petitioner is concerned, the only grievance
is that the alternative shop which is being allotted is situated in the
back of the property and business of the petitioner is likely to be
affected. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is only a licencee
he cannot insist upon the respondents to continue him in the
present premises and as alternative shop is being offered to the
appellants, it is not possible to entertain the appeal. Accordingly
both appeal and writ petition are dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.MURALIDHAR
JULY 15, 2008 (JUDGE)
'v'
