Vikas Gupta vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 4246 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 15314/2006

      VIKAS GUPTA                ..... Petitioner
                         Through       Mr. J.C. Mahendru, Advocate.

                    versus

      GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.     .... Respondent
                       Through    Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate for the
                                  respondent No.1.
                                  Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for the
                                  DDA.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
            ORDER

% 21.10.2009

As per the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, Jagan Nath

Rangwale, 80, Gali Siraswali, Khari Baoli, Delhi was found to be eligible for

allotment of an alternative accommodation under the re-location scheme.

The name, Jagan Nath Rangwale appears at Sr. No.341 in the list of 883

Chemical Traders prepared by the Government of NCT of Delhi.

2. The petitioner, Mr. Vikas Gupta is the sole proprietor of Jagan Nath

Rangwale and his name is also recorded at Sr. No.341.

3. The petitioner has stated that he was also carrying on business in the

name of Jagan Nath Ranwala at 300, Tilak Bazar, Khari Baoli, Delhi. The said

name does not figure in the list of 883 Chemical Traders, who were found

to be eligible for shifting. As per the affidavit of Mr. R.K. Sharma, SDM,

WPC No.15314/2006 Page 1 Kotwali, the said name appears at Sr. 115 of the deleted list and the reason

for deletion mentioned against the said name is "double". This as per the

petitioner is on account of the fact that the petitioner's name was already

approved and shown at Sr. No.341 under the name Jagan Nath Rangwale.

4. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner was carrying on business

both at 300, Tilak Bazar, Khari Baoli, Delhi and 80, Gali Siraswali, Khari Baoli,

Delhi under the names Jagan Nath Rangwale and Jagan Nath Rangwala. The

petitioner has filed on record sales tax registration certificate which records

that the petitioner was operating from both properties namely, 300, Tilak

Bazar, Khari Baoli, Delhi and 80, Gali Siraswali, Khari Baoli, Delhi. The said

registration under the Delhi Sales Tax Act was issued way back on 9th July,

1959. It is not the case of the respondents that some other person claims to

be the proprietor of the Jagan Nath Rangwale mentioned at Srl. No.341 in

the list of 883 Chemical Traders prepared by the Government of NCT of

Delhi.

5. Counsel for the respondent GNCTD submits that the petitioner has

not deposited Rs. 20,000/- towards costs as directed by the High Court and,

therefore, is not entitled for allotment. This contention is no correct. The

petitioner had deposited Rs. 20,000/- but the said deposit has been treated

as deposit made on behalf of Jagan Nath Rangwala, 300, Tilak Bazar, Khari

WPC No.15314/2006 Page 2 Baoli, Delhi. The petitioner was operating from both properties. Claim for

allotment against the property at 300, Tilak Bazar, Khari Baoli, Delhi, has

been rejected on the ground "double" i.e. it will amount to double

allotment. The cost of Rs.20,000/- deposited by the petitioner against the

premises at 300, Tilak Bazar, Khari Baoli, Delhi, should be treated as deposit

made by the petitioner against the property at 80, Gali Siraswali, Khari

Baoli, Delhi. The petitioner cannot be denied benefit of the said deposit of

Rs. 20,000/- towards costs. Accordingly, the mandamus is issued to the

respondents to make allotment in favour of the petitioner in terms of the

scheme. The petitioner will be entitled to only one allotment. The

allotment will be made within six weeks from the date copy of this order is

received. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to cost.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

OCTOBER 21, 2009
NA/P




WPC No.15314/2006                                                       Page 3