Delhi High Court
Arihant Kumar & Others vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others on 21 October, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15105/2006
ARIHANT KUMAR & ORS. ... Petitioner
Through Mr. K. Sunil, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .... Respondent
Through Mr. Amit Mehra, Adv. for DDA.
Mr. M. Khanna, Adv. for R-2.
Mr. Alok Singh, Adv. for MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 21.10.2009
The petitioners are traders, operating from Sadar Bazar and are
dealing in steel utensils. They have filed the present writ petition seeking
following prayers:-
"In view of the facts and circumstances of
the case it is, therefore, most respectfully and
humbly prayed that in the interest of justice
this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to;
"a. issue a writ, order and/or direction in the
nature of mandamus or any other writ, order
and/or direction against the respondents
thereby directing the respondents to allocate
the land/commercial places in order to carry
the trade, business and storage of steel utensils
thereby relocation the commercial activities of
Sadar Bazar and Old Delhi Zone as per Master
Plan, 1962.
b. issue a writ, order and/or direction in the
nature of mandamus or any other writ, order
and/or direction against the respondents
thereby restraining the respondents from
taking any coercive action in running the
business of sell storage in the area of the
premises of the petitioner falling in Sadar Bazar
Zone till such time the respondent act upon the
provisions of Master Plan of 1982 thereby
allocating the land as provided therein for the
purpose of trade and storage of steel utensils.
c. pass any such other or further order
and/or direction which this Hon'bel Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
2. The aforesaid prayers are based upon Master Plan of Delhi, 1962,
and the subsequent Master Plans. However, it may be noticed that the
present writ petition was filed before the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021, was
enforced.
3. The respondent MCD in their counter affidavit has stated as under:-
"5. That in Master Plan 2021 some more
provisions have been made regarding the
commercial activity in the Sadar Bazar Zone, its
relocation, redevelopment etc. The impugned
road has been declared as Commercial vide GOI
notification dated 7th & 15th Sept. 2006. The
provisions of the notifications and Master Plan
2021 are subject to the final outcome of the
judgment/order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in M.C. Mehta & Others Vs. Union of India
(W.P.No.4677/1985).
6. That the respondent is duty bound to take
action as per the Master Plan 2021 and the
DMC Act and other guidelines of the Union
Government /Supreme Court's
judgment/order."
It is stated that the matter of relocation and providing suitable sites
is to be undertaken by the Government of India, Government of NCT of
Delhi and Delhi Development Authority.
4. DDA in their counter affidavit has stated that several relocation
schemes have been formulated by them for trades like fruits, vegetable,
meat market etc. It is further pointed out that redevelopment and
decongestion of old city areas like Sadar Bazar, Chandani Chowk etc. have
not been implemented due to scarcity of land and other reasons and as per
the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021, the market of Sadar Bazar is required to be
redeveloped at the same location with necessary infrastructure and the
Sadar Bazar areas has been designated as a special area. It is further
pointed out in the counter affidavit that redevelopment plan/scheme for
this special area has to be prepared and notified by the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi with the approval of the Central Government within 3
years of the approval of Master Plan of Delhi, 2021, and till such times
status quo has to be maintained. It is, therefore, clear that the respondents
are not taking further action and status quo is to be maintained till the
redevelopment of Sadar Bazar area is finalized. Further, wholesale market
in Sadar Bazar is to be redeveloped on the same location with necessary
infrastructure and parking.
5. Counsel for the petitioner states that he apprehends the legal action
and forceful closure/sealing. No such averment and allegation has been
made in the writ petition itself. In view of the counter affidavit filed by the
DDA and in the light of the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021, the apprehension of
the petitioners does not appear to be correct. However, it is open to the
petitioners to take steps to protect their rights in case the respondents take
any action for sealing/closure of their shops.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
OCTOBER 21, 2009.
NA/P
