Delhi High Court

Dinesh Khanna vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 August, 2009

Author: V.K.Shali

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of Decision : 24.8.2009

+ Crl. M.C. No.1647/2008, Crl. M.C. No.1615/2008

DINESH KHANNA                               ...... Petitioner
                                   Through: Ms. Amita Kalkal,
                                   Advocate

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                       ...... Respondent
                                    Through : Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP

Crl. M.C. No.1708/2008

DINESH KHANNA                               ...... Petitioner
                                   Through: Nemo

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ...... Respondents
                      Through : Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP

Crl. M.C. No.1750/2008

DINESH KHANNA                                   ......       Petitioner
                                   Through:     Mr.      Abhimanyu         Devraj
Advocate

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ...... Respondents
                       Through : Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal,
                      Standing Counsel for MCD
                      Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP

Crl. M.C. No.1963/2008

DINESH KHANNA                               ...... Petitioner
                                   Through: Ms. Amita Kalkal,
                                   Advocate

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ...... Respondents
               Through : Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP for the State.

Crl.M.C.Nos.1647/08, 1415/08, 1416/08, 1417/08, 1418/08, 1512/08, 1514/08, 1515/08,
1516/08, 1517/08, 1579/08, 1615/08, 1703/08, 1704/08, 1708/08, 1709/08, 1710/08,
1711/08, 1750/08, 1751/08, 1752/08, 1872/08, 1873/08 & 1963/08

                                                                        Page 1 of 29
 Crl. M.C. No.1415/2008

NARESH KUMAR SHARMA                         ...... Petitioner
                                   Through: Mr.Sanat Kumar                    and
                                   Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocates

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                       ...... Respondent
                                    Through : Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP

Crl. M.C. No.1416/2008, Crl. M.C. No.1417/2008

AVTAR SINGH                                 ...... Petitioner
                                   Through: Mr.Sanat Kumar and
                                   Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                       ...... Respondent
                                    Through : Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP

Crl. M.C. No.1418/2008

MANOJ KUMAR                                 ...... Petitioner
                                   Through: Mr. Amita Kalkal,
                                   Advocate

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                       ...... Respondent
                                    Through : Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP


Crl. M.C. No.1512 /2008, Crl. M.C. No.1515/2008

INDER SINGH                       ...... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Mr.Sanat Kumar and
Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                       ...... Respondent
                                    Through : Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP


Crl. M.C. No.1514/2008

Crl.M.C.Nos.1647/08, 1415/08, 1416/08, 1417/08, 1418/08, 1512/08, 1514/08, 1515/08,
1516/08, 1517/08, 1579/08, 1615/08, 1703/08, 1704/08, 1708/08, 1709/08, 1710/08,
1711/08, 1750/08, 1751/08, 1752/08, 1872/08, 1873/08 & 1963/08

                                                                        Page 2 of 29
 RAJINDER SINGH                    ...... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Mr.Sanat Kumar and
Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                       ...... Respondent
                                    Through : Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP

Crl. M.C. No.1516/2008

VINOD SEHRAWAT                              ...... Petitioner
                                   Through: Mr.Sanat Kumar and
                                   Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                       ...... Respondent
                                    Through : Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP


Crl. M.C. No.1517/2008

PAWAN KUMAR                                 ...... Petitioner
                                   Through: Mr.Sanat Kumar and
                                   Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                       ...... Respondent
                                    Through : Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP


Crl. M.C. No.1579/2008

RAVINDER TULANI                             ...... Petitioner
                                   Through: Abhimanyu Devraj,
                                   Advocate

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                       ...... Respondent
                                    Through : Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP




Crl.M.C.Nos.1647/08, 1415/08, 1416/08, 1417/08, 1418/08, 1512/08, 1514/08, 1515/08,
1516/08, 1517/08, 1579/08, 1615/08, 1703/08, 1704/08, 1708/08, 1709/08, 1710/08,
1711/08, 1750/08, 1751/08, 1752/08, 1872/08, 1873/08 & 1963/08

                                                                        Page 3 of 29
 Crl. M.C. No.1709/2008, Crl. M.C. No.1710/2008, Crl. M.C.
No. 1711/2008, Crl. M.C. No.1751 /2008, Crl. M.C.
No.1752/2008

RAVINDER TULANI                             ...... Petitioner
                                   Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Devraj
                                            Advocate

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ...... Respondents
                       Through : Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal,
                               Standing Counsel for MCD
                               Advocate
                               Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP for
                               the State.

Crl. M.C. No.1703/2008

SURESH KUMAR                                ...... Petitioner
                                   Through: Mr.Sanat Kumar and
                                   Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                       ...... Respondent
                                    Through : Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP

Crl. M.C. No.1704/2008

JAIVEER LOHIA                               ...... Petitioner
                                   Through: Mr.Sanat Kumar and
                                   Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                       ...... Respondent
                                    Through : Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP

Crl. M.C. No.1872 /2008

SATBHAN SEHRAWAT                            ...... Petitioner
                                   Through: Mr.Sanat Kumar and
                                   Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.                    ......      Respondents

Crl.M.C.Nos.1647/08, 1415/08, 1416/08, 1417/08, 1418/08, 1512/08, 1514/08, 1515/08,
1516/08, 1517/08, 1579/08, 1615/08, 1703/08, 1704/08, 1708/08, 1709/08, 1710/08,
1711/08, 1750/08, 1751/08, 1752/08, 1872/08, 1873/08 & 1963/08

                                                                        Page 4 of 29
                                     Through : Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP

                                      AND

Crl. M.C. No.1873/2008

GIAN GUPTA                                  ...... Petitioner
                                   Through: Mr.Sanat Kumar and
                                            Mr.Sanjay Sharma,
                                            Advocate

                                   Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ...... Respondents
                       Through : Mr.Jaideep Malik, APP for
                               the State.


CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?                             YES
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                  YES
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?                                          YES
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. This batch of petitions is for quashing of Kalandra issued

against the petitioners by the local police under Section 28

read with Section 112 of the Delhi Police Act. All these

matters are involving the same or somewhat similar

questions of fact and law and are therefore, disposed of by

one common order.

2. Broadly speaking, there are two categories of cases, though

there are individual factual variation, accordingly, the

result of each individual case may vary. These two broad

categories of cases are, one in respect of those Kalandras

Crl.M.C.Nos.1647/08, 1415/08, 1416/08, 1417/08, 1418/08, 1512/08, 1514/08, 1515/08, 1516/08, 1517/08, 1579/08, 1615/08, 1703/08, 1704/08, 1708/08, 1709/08, 1710/08, 1711/08, 1750/08, 1751/08, 1752/08, 1872/08, 1873/08 & 1963/08

where before the actual date of filing of Kalandra, the

petitioner had applied for licence to the DCP (Licensing)

(hereinafter called as „First Category‟) while as the second

set of cases are those cases where the petitioners have not

applied to the DCP (Licensing) for grant of requisite licence

before the initiation of Kalandra and has taken the plea

that the application was not accepted by the DCP

(Licensing) on the ground that before applying, they must

obtain a „Health Trade‟ licence from the MCD (hereinafter

called as „Second Category‟).

3. So far as the facts of the present case titled Sh.Dinesh

Khanna Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi bearing

Crl.M.C. No.1647/2008 are concerned, in this case the

petitioner has prayed for quashing of Kalandra pending

before the learned MM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi

under Section 28/112 of Delhi Police Act initiated vide DD

No.70B dated 17.5.2007. It is alleged in the petition that

the petitioner has been running a Guest House in the name

and style of Hotel City Centre being operated from L-118,

Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi-110037 built up on an

area of about 109 sq. yds. comprising of basement, ground

floor, second floor and third floor, having nine rooms.

4. It is alleged in the petition that the Guest House was

running in the name and style of Sai Transit Hotel and the

said Guest House is registered u/s 8 of the Luxuries Act,

1996 from 01.6.1999 and the said registration is in the

name of Hotel City Centre w.e.f. 02.6.2003. It is stated that

the Guest House is registered with the Delhi Tax on

Luxuries Act, 1996 from 1st June, 1999 and the said

registration is in the name of Hotel City Centre w.e.f. 2 nd

June, 2003.

5. The petitioner is praying for quashing of the Kalandra

mainly on two grounds, firstly, on the ground that although

the petitioner has applied for grant of licence but the said

licence has not been granted by the DCP (Licensing) despite

the fact that vide letter dated 11.5.2000 the then

Commissioner of Police, Delhi directed the local police to

maintain the status quo and not to go overboard in

prosecuting the owners of guest houses who do not have

such licence because the policy regarding grant of licence

to the Guest House was yet to be finalized. The local police

was also informed that any complaint received after

issuance of the said order by the Commissioner of Police

would be dealt with seriously.

6. The second ground on which the Kalandra is prayed to be

quashed is that on 19.8.2002, this Court in Crl.(Misc.)

Main No.3033/1998 had specifically observed that as the

local police has not formulated the guidelines for grant of

licence to the guest houses therefore, in a case where the

petitioner in the said case had shown that before initiation

of Kalandra he had applied for grant of licence the said

Kalandra should be quashed. It was also observed that the

said quashing of Kalandra and the consequent proceedings

by the local police should be taken as a wake up call by the

concerned authorities to formulate a policy/guideline for

the purpose of grant of licence.

7. Although this order was passed on 19.8.2002 but despite

the fact that more than seven years have passed till date no

policy/guideline has been formulated by the respondent.

This fact has been admitted by the learned APP for the

State that as on date, there is no policy regarding grant of

licence in question.

8. The learned APP for the State has not disputed the factum

of the letter having been issued by the Commissioner of

Police.

9. So far as the judgment of this Court passed on 19.8.2002 is

concerned, it has been stated by the learned APP that the

question of formulation of policy/guideline is still engaging

the attention of the authorities although they have not been

able to give it a concrete shape.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record. I have also gone through the orders

passed by the learned Predecessor directing the MCD to file

an affidavit giving details of policy as well as various other

information pertaining to grant of licence to the Guest

Houses in Delhi including urban and rural areas or

unauthorized colonies keeping in view the MPD 2021. The

said information is placed on record.

11. The issue as to grant of licence by the MCD and the

considerations like whether the Guest Houses are in the

rural or urban area, authorized or unauthorized colonies,

on the road abutting the national highway or the service

lane or a road which is permitted to be used for mixed land

use or not, would not be relevant for the purpose of

deciding as to whether the proceedings which have been

initiated against the petitioners by way of Kalandra under

Section 28/112 of the Delhi Police Act should continue or

not, because the police is not concerned with the

enforcement of provisions of the MCD Act or the Luxury

Tax Act although a guest house may be required to obtain a

licence under the said Acts. It is only concerned with the

enforcement of penal law or the laws wherein an owner is

required to obtain licence from the police authorities.

12. There is no denial of the fact that on account of

multifarious local and central authorities a bonafide person

who wants to run a Guest House in the City of Delhi is

required to obtain licences from different authorities.

13. The question which has been raised for consideration is

that in case where a petitioner is required to obtain a

licence under Luxury Tax Act and the same is not done, the

sanction would be provided under the said Act and that will

have no bearing qua the prosecution of the offender for

violating a provision of a different statute. Same would be

the case when a person is required to obtain a licence

under Section 417/421 of the MCD Act. If the licence

under MCD Act is not obtained, the sanction is provided

under Section 461 read with Section 470 of the MCD Act

however, merely on account of the fact that a person does

not have the licence under the MCD Act, he cannot be

prosecuted under Section 28 read with Section 112 of the

Delhi Police Act notwithstanding the fact that he may not

have the licence granted by the DCP (Licensing). All these

provisions of different statutes are operating in different

fields and carry different punishments. Therefore, the

submissions which were made by some of the counsel to

the effect that the Guest House in question is in the

unauthorized colony pending regularization or that the

petitioner in a given case had the requisite licence from

Luxury Tax department or even for that matter from MCD

under the relevant statute would not exonerate or insulate

the petitioner from prosecution under Section 28 read with

Section 112 of the Delhi Police Act in case he does not have

a requisite licence issued by the DCP (Licensing).

Therefore, so far as the present batch of petitions in

general are concerned, the fact of a particular petitioner

having licence from Luxury Tax Department or from MCD

is not relevant and the only aspect which needs to be

considered is that whether he has a licence issued by the

DCP (Licensing ) or not.

14. Section 28 lays down that the Commissioner of Police may

by notification in the official Gazette make regulations to

provide for all or any of the following matters namely:-

"(x) (i) licensing or controlling places of public amusement or public entertainment;

(ii) prohibiting the keeping of places of public amusement or public entertainment or assembly, in order to prevent obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the residents or passengers in the vicinity; and

(iii) regulating the means of entrance and exit at places of public amusement or public entertainment or assembly and providing for the maintenance of public order and the prevention of disturbance thereat;"

15. It is the case of the prosecution that the licence which is

granted to the guest houses is under regulation for keeping

places of public entertainment in the Union Territory of

Delhi which are framed by the Commissioner of Police with

the provisions of sanction of administrator and exercise of

power under clauses (x) and 2(b) (1) of Section 28 of Delhi

Police Act which came into operation w.e.f. 23.9.1982.

Although the regulations for grant of licences are in place

but despite this, licences are not being given by the DCP

(Licensing) as is apparent from the letter dated 11.5.2000

issued by the Commissioner of Police to all his subordinate

that they should maintain status quo and should not go

overboard to prosecute the owners of the Guest House for

violation of Section 28 read with Section 112 of the Delhi

Police Act for not possessing the licence as the police itself

is yet to formulate the policy/guidelines for the purpose of

grant of such licence.

16. This also finds support from the judgment of the learned

Single Judge of this Court in Crl.M.M. No.3033/1998 in

which vide order dated 19.8.2008 the Kalandras under

Section 28 read with Section 112 of the Delhi Police Act wer

quashed on account of the fact that the DCP (Licensing)

had not issued the license although the same was applied

by the parties before initiation of Kalandra.

The observation was also made that quashing of the said

Kalandra should be taken as a wakeup call to the local

police to formulate the guidelines as early as possible

because the absence of such a policy was becoming a

source of harassment to the Guest House owners and

seeking their repeated prosecution was in violation of the

order dated 11.5.2002 by the Commissioner of Police. The

local police does not seem to have woken up from the

slumber as yet because although more than seven years

have passed but the policy/guidelines are still not finalized.

This fact is also not disputed by the learned APP. In such

event, the only thing which the petitioner is required to

show is that whether he had applied to the DCP (Licensing)

for grant of licence before the date of filing of Kalandra in

question. If this is shown either by way of a letter placed

on record or even by an averment then obviously the

Kalandra in such a case deserves to be quashed however in

a case where neither such an averment is made nor the

details of the application are given then in such a

contingency, the Kalandra cannot be quashed although in

some cases, plea was taken that any application in this

regard was not being accepted by the DCP (Licensing) in

the absence of a health license or a trade license having not

been given by the MCD. This plea cannot be accepted as a

ground for quashing the Kalandra for two reasons:-

a) In case the DCP refused to accept the application for

grant of licence in the absence of a valid trade or

health trade licence being issued by the MCD prior to

the date of initiation of proceedings by way of

Kalandra, nothing would have prevented such a party

from filing an application by post and attach the proof

thereof

b) Secondly, this plea that the application itself was not

accepted by the DCP (Licensing ) for grant of licence

becomes a disputed question of fact and hence

Kalandra on the said disputed question of fact cannot

be quashed.

17. However, even in such cases also the petitioner, if he has

applied for grant of licence but has not filed the document

in this Court or pleaded the said fact in the petition, still he

shall be free to urge this ground before the learned

Magistrate as a fact in his defence and prove it.

18. With these two broad parameters, the individual cases are

considered and are being decided separately by passing

separate order in each case hereinafter.

19. So far as the petitioner in the instant case is concerned,

admittedly the Kalandra has been initiated on 17.5.2007

while as the petitioner in his petition has not only made an

averment but has also placed on record a photocopy of the

letter having been sent to the DCP (Licensing) on 10.4.2007

for grant of licence and since the said application has not

been decided by the DCP (Licensing) despite the orders of

Commissioner of Police as well as the directions of the

learned Single Judge in Crl.M.M. No.3033/1998, the

proceedings of this case under Section 28 read with Section

112 deserve to be quashed.

20. With these directions, the present petition bearing Crl.M.C.

No.1647/2008 is allowed.

Crl.M.C.No.1708/2008

1. The petitioner is running a hotel under the name and style

of Hotel Metro Tower at 552, Mata Chowk, Vasant Kunj

Airport Road, Mahipal Pur Extension, New Delhi-37. The

owner of the guest house got duly registered with the

Luxury Tax Department under Section 8 of the Delhi Tax

on Luxuries Act, 1996. He had also applied for grant of

licence to the DCP (licencing), Defence Colony for running a

Hotel vide application dated 10.4.2007. However, despite

having applied for grant of licence to the DCP (licencing)

Delhi Police, the request of the petitioner for the licence was

not apparently processed and yet the petitioner was booked

u/s 28/112 of the Delhi Police Act by Kalandra vide DD

entry no.32A dated 03.05.2007.

2. Since in the instant case, the petitioner had applied for

grant of licence prior to the filing of Kalandra, accordingly,

for the reasons stated hereinabove, in paragraphs 1 to 18,

the kalandra against the present petitioner is directed to be

quashed.

Crl.M.C.No.1963/2008

1. The petitioner is running a Guest House under the name

and style of Sai Transit Hotel at L-118, Mahipalpur

Extension, New Delhi-37 which is duly registered with the

Luxury Tax Department under Section 8 of the Delhi Tax

on Luxuries Act, 1996. The petitioner had also applied for

grant of licence to the DCP (licencing) on 10.4.2007 for

running the Guest House. However, the petitioner‟s

request for grant of licence was not dealt with. On the

contrary on 03.05.2007, the petitioner was booked u/s

28/112 of the Delhi Police Act vide Kalandra No.32A.

2. Since in the instant case, the petitioner had applied for

grant of licence prior to the filing of Kalandra accordingly,

for the reasons given hereinbefore, the kalandra against the

petitioner is quashed.

Crl.M.C. No.1710/2008 Crl.M.C. No. 1709/2008

Crl.M.C.No.1579/2008 Crl. M.C. No. 1711/2008

1. The petitioner is claiming himself to be the sole proprietor

of a Hotel by the name and style of Hotel Night Centre

operated from L-27, Mahipalpur, Extension, New Delhi-37.

2. The petitioner has not mentioned anywhere in the petition

as to on what date the he had applied for grant of licence

with the DCP (licencing), Delhi Police. The petitioner was

challaned u/s 28/112 of the Delhi Police Act on different

dates vide DD entry No.46-B dated 12.1.2007, DD entry

No.38-B on 23.3.2007, DD entry No.58-B dated 14.3.2007

and DD entry no. 70-B dated 17.5.2007 for running the

Guest House without having valid licence.

3. The petitioner is claiming himself to be duly registered

with the Delhi Luxury Department. However, as there is

neither any averment nor any prima facie proof placed on

record by the petitioner to show that he had ever applied

for grant of licence to the DCP (licencing) prior to the

registration of kalandra accordingly, the present kalandra

against the petitioner cannot be quashed. However, the

petitioner shall be free to adduce the evidence before the

learned Trial Court to establish that he had applied for

grant of licence to the DCP (Licensing) before the

registration of kalandra and if it is done then the

petitioner‟s case obviously will be covered by the main

judgment that he cannot be prosecuted for having not

obtained the licence from the DCP (Licensing).

4. With these observations, the aforesaid petition is

dismissed.

Crl.M.C. No.1750/2008 Crl. M.C. No. 1751/2008

1. The petitioner is claiming himself to be the sole proprietor

of a Hotel under the name and style of Hotel Night Centre

operated from L-27, Mahipalpur, Extension, New Delhi-37.

2. The petitioner has not stated anywhere in the petition as to

on what date the petitioner had applied for grant of licence

with the DCP (licencing), Delhi Police. The petitioner was

challaned u/s 28/112 of the Delhi Police Act vide Kalandra

No.66-B dated 18.10.2005 and kalandra no.35-A dated

19.10.2006 for running the guest house without having

valid licence.

3. The petitioner is claiming himself to be duly registered with

the Delhi Luxury Tax Department. However, as there is

neither any averment nor any prima facie proof placed by

the petitioner on record to show that the petitioner had ever

applied for grant of licence to the DCP (licencing) prior to

the registration of kalandra, accordingly, the present

kalandra against the petitioner cannot be quashed.

However, the petitioner shall be free to adduce the evidence

before the learned Trial Court to establish that the

petitioner had applied for grant of licence the DCP before

the registration of kalandra and if it is done so, the

petitioner‟s case obviously will be covered by the main

judgment that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for not

having obtained the licence from the DCP (Licencing).

4. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.

Crl.M.C.NO.1417/2008

1. The petitioner is running a Guest House under the name

and style of Avtar Guest House as one of its proprietor at

N.H-8, Mahipal Pur, New Delhi-37.

2. The petitioner was booked u/s 28 r/w Section 112 of the

Delhi Police Act vide DD entry Nos. 37A and 37B on

14.3.2007 and 23.3.2007 for running the Guest House

without having obtained the licence from the DCP

(Licencing). However, the petitioner has neither averred in

the petition nor placed any evidence on record by way of a

prima facie proof to show that he has ever applied to the

DCP (licencing) for the grant of licence before he was

booked. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that no policy

was formed by the Delhi Police for grant of licence does not

come to his rescue and the proceedings which were

initiated against the petitioner on the basis of kalandra in

question cannot be quashed.

3. Accordingly, the said proceedings against the petitioner

cannot be quashed. However, the petitioner shall be free to

adduce evidence before the learned Trial Court that it had

applied for grant of licence before he was booked for

violating Section 28 of the Delhi Police Act.

Crl.M.C.NO.1418/2008

1. The petitioner is running a Guest House under the name

and style of M/s Lohias as one of its proprietor at N.H-8,

Mahipal Pur, New Delhi-37.

2. The petitioner was booked for running the Guest House

without any valid licence in the month of March and May,

2007 vide DD entry no.37B and 21A. The petitioner has

not placed on record any prima facie evidence or averred in

the petition that before he was booked for violating the

aforesaid provision of law he had ever applied for grant of

licence to the DCP (licencing). Accordingly, the present

petition is totally misconceived and the proceedings against

the petitioner cannot be quashed. However, the petitioner

shall be free to adduce evidence before the learned Trial

Court to show that he had applied for grant of licence

before the registration of kalandra.

Crl.M.C.No.1416/2008

1. The petitioner is running a guest house under the name

and style Dhawan Guest house as its sole proprietor at NH-

8, Mahipal Pur, New Delhi and was booked on 23.3.2007

and 03.5.2007 vide DD entry Nos.67B and 41B u/s 28 read

with Section 112 of the Delhi Police Act for running the

guest house without any valid licence. No prima facie proof

has been placed on record nor it has been averred that he

had applied for grant of licence before kalandra was

registered.

2. Accordingly, the present petition for the reasons stated

hereinabove is misconceived and the same is dismissed.

Crl.M.C.No.1415/2008

1. The petitioner is running a guest house under the name

and style of M/s Paradise International as one of its

partners at N.H-8, Mahipal Pur, New Delhi-37. The

petitioner was booked in the month of March and May

2007 vide DD entry no.58B and 44B u/s 28/112 of the

Delhi Police Act.

2. The petitioner has neither averred nor placed any prima

facie proof that he had applied for grant of licence before he

was booked.

3. Accordingly, the present petition is misconceived and the

same is dismissed.

3. The petitioner shall be free to adduce evidence before the

Court concerned that it had applied for licence before he

was booked under Section 28 of the Delhi Police Act.

Crl.M.C.No.1873/2008

1. The petitioner is running a Guest House under the name

and style of M/s Westend Inn as its sole proprietor at N.H-

8, Rangpuri, New Delhi-37. The petitioner had applied for

grant of licence by the DCP (licencing) on 10.12.2004. The

petitioner‟s application for grant of licence was not decided.

On the contrary, in the year, 2007, kalandra was registered

against the petitioner for running the guest house without

any licence on 17.5.2007 vide DD entry no.6813 u/s 28 of

the Delhi Police Act is bad and is quashed because the

petitioner had already applied for grant of licence to the

DCP (licencing) in the year 2004. Prima facie evidence in

this regard has been placed on record by the petitioner.

Crl.M.C.No.1514/2008

1. The petitioner is running a guest house under the name

and style of Sheetal Guest House as a sole proprietor at

N.H-8, Mahipal Pur, New Delhi-37. The petitioner was

booked u/s 28 r/w Section 112 of the Delhi Police Act vide

DD entry Nos. 38B, 80B, 66B and 37A by the Delhi Police

Act between the period 2006-07.

2. Neither the petitioner has placed any prima facie proof on

the record nor there is any averment in the petition that he

had ever applied for grant of licence to the DCP (licencing)

before he was booked u/s 28/112 of the Delhi Police Act.

3. Accordingly, the proceeding cannot be quashed. The

petitioner is free to adduce evidence before the Court below

to show that he had applied for grant of licence prior to the

registration of the kalandra.

Crl.M.C.No.1615/2008

1. The petitioner is running a guest house under the name

and style of Hotel City Centre registered with the Luxury

Tax Department u/s 8 of the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act.

The petitioner was booked u/s 28/112 of the Delhi Police

Act vide kalandra no.37-A dated 14.3.2007.

2. Since in the instant case, the petitioner had applied for

grant of licence prior to the filing of Kalandra accordingly,

for the reasons stated hereinabove, in paragraphs 1 to 18,

the kalandra against the present petitioner is directed to be

quashed.

Crl.M.C. No.1752/2008

1. The petitioner is running a guest house under the name

and style of Hotel Night Stay Centre at L-27, Mahipal Pur

Extension, New Delhi-37. The petitioner was booked u/s

28/112 of the Delhi Police Act vide kalandra No.32A dated

3.5.2007.

2. The petitioner has not placed any prima facie proof in the

petition that he had ever applied for grant of licence to the

DCP (licencing) before he was booked u/s 28/112 of the

Delhi Police Act.

3. Accordingly, the proceeding cannot be quashed. However,

the petitioner is free to adduce evidence before the Court

below to show that he had applied for grant of licence prior

to the same.

Crl.M.C.No.1704/2008

1. The petitioner is running a guest house under the name

and style of Loh Mod as its sole proprietor at NH-8, Mahipal

Pur, New Delhi-37 duly registered u/s 8 of the Delhi Tax on

Luxuries Act. The petitioner was booked u/s 28/112 of the

Delhi Police Act vide kalandra Nos.37-B, 62-B, 57-B and

42 A dated 26.6.2007, 8.5.2007, 14.3.2007 and 23.3.2007

respectively.

2. The petitioner has not placed any prima facie proof in the

petition that he had ever applied for grant of licence to the

DCP (licencing) before he was booked u/s 28/112 of the

Delhi Police Act.

3. Accordingly, the proceeding cannot be quashed. The

petitioner is free to adduce evidence before the Court below

to show that he had applied for grant of licence prior to the

registration of the kalandra.

Crl.M.C.No.1512/2008

1. The petitioner is running a guest house under the name

and style of Star as one of its partners at NH-8, Mahipal

Pur, New Delhi-37 registered with the Luxury Tax

Department u/s 8 of the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act. The

petitioner was booked u/s 28/112 of the Delhi Police Act

vide kalandra Nos.28A and 38B dated 3.5.2007 and

3.12.2006.

2. The petitioner has not placed any prima facie proof in the

petition that he had ever applied for grant of licence to the

DCP (licencing) before he was booked u/s 28/112 of the

Delhi Police Act.

3. Accordingly, the proceeding cannot be quashed. The

petitioner is free to adduce evidence before the Court below

to show that he had applied for grant of licence prior to the

registration of kalandra.

Crl.M.C.No.1703/2008

1. The petitioner is running a guest house under the name

and style of Airport Inn as its sole proprietor at NH-8,

Mahipal Pur, New Delhi registered with the Luxury Tax

Department u/s 8 of the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act. The

petitioner was booked u/s 28/112 of the Delhi Police Act

vide DD entry nos.42 A, 21A, 43 B, 38B and 37B dated

15.10.2006, 23.3.2007, 13.1.2007, 1.5.2007 and 8.5.2007.

2. The petitioner has not placed any prima facie proof in the

petition that he had ever applied for grant of licence to the

DCP (licencing) before he was booked u/s 28/112 of the

Delhi Police Act.

3. Accordingly, the proceeding cannot be quashed. The

petitioner is free to adduce evidence before the Court below

to show that he had applied for grant of licence prior to the

registration of kalandra.

Crl.M.C.No.1515/2008

1. The petitioner is running a guest house under the name

and style of international Inn as one of its partners at NH-

8, Mahipal Pur, New Delhi-37 registered with the Luxury

Tax Department u/s 8 of the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act.

The petitioner was booked u/s 28/112 of the Delhi Police

Act vide DD entry nos.79 A, 70 B, 40 A, 41B and 28 A

dated 03.5.2007 and 19.10.2006.

2. The petitioner has not placed any prima facie proof in the

petition that he had ever applied for grant of licence to the

DCP (licencing) before he was booked u/s 28/112 of the

Delhi Police Act.

3. Accordingly, the proceeding cannot be quashed. The

petitioner is free to adduce evidence before the Court below

to show that he had applied for grant of licence prior to the

registration of kalandra.

Crl.M.C.no.1516/2008

1. The petitioner is running a guest house under the name

and style of R.Blues as its sole proprietor at NH-8, Mahipal

Pur, New Delhi-37 registered with the Luxury Tax

Department u/s 8 of the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act. The

petitioner was booked u/s 28/112 of the Delhi Police Act

vide DD entry nos.58B, 28A, 86B, 42 A, 41 B AND 5A dated

8.5.2007, 3.5.2007, 31.5.2005, 23.3.2007, 14.3.2007, 7-

8.4.2004 and 17.1.2007.

2. The petitioner has not placed any prima facie proof in the

petition that he had ever applied for grant of licence to the

DCP (licencing) before he was booked u/s 28/112 of the

Delhi Police Act.

3. Accordingly, the proceeding cannot be quashed. The

petitioner is free to adduce evidence before the Court below

to show that he had applied for grant of licence prior to the

same.

Crl.M.C.No.1517/2008

1. The petitioner is running a guest house under the name

and style of Surya Guest House as its sole proprietor at

NH-8, Mahipal Pur, New Delhi-37 registered with the

Luxury Tax Department u/s 8 of the Delhi Tax on Luxuries

Act. The petitioner was booked u/s 28/112 of the Delhi

Police Act vide DD entry nos.40A & 51B/57B dated

19.10.2006 and 22.7.2006.

2. The petitioner has not placed any prima facie proof in the

petition that he had ever applied for grant of licence to the

DCP (licencing) before he was booked u/s 28/112 of the

Delhi Police Act.

3. Accordingly, the proceeding cannot be quashed. The

petitioner is free to adduce evidence before the Court below

to show that he had applied for grant of licence prior to the

same.

Crl.M.C.No.1872/2008

1. The petitioner is running a guest house under the name

and style of Shalimar Hotel as its sole proprietor at NH-8,

Mahipal Pur, New Delhi-37 registered with the Luxury Tax

Department u/s 8 of the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act. The

petitioner was booked u/s 28/112 of the Delhi Police Act

vide DD entry no.46B dated 14.3.2007, 19.1.2007,

30.8.2005, 12.7.2005, 28.1.2008, 21.11.2008 and

21.11.2006.

2. The petitioner has not placed any prima facie proof in the

petition that he had ever applied for grant of licence to the

DCP (licencing) before he was booked u/s 28 of the Delhi

Police Act.

3. Accordingly, the proceeding cannot be quashed. The

petitioner is free to adduce evidence before the Court below

to show that he had applied for grant of licence prior to the

same.

V.K. SHALI, J.

AUGUST 24, 2009 RN

Supreme Court Judgments

High Court Judgments

Campus Buzz

Library

Legal Education

More

Circulars & Notices

Dinesh Khanna vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2009 Latest Caselaw 3332 Del

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

Dinesh Khanna vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi2009 Latest Caselaw 3332 Del

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

Dinesh Khanna vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2009 Latest Caselaw 3332 Del