Sohan Lal vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 3659 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                            Date of decision: 6th August, 2010.

+                           W.P.(C) No.4910/2010
%
SOHAN LAL                                                 ..... Petitioner
                            Through: Mr. Deepak Dewan, Advocate

                                      Versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS             ..... Respondents
                Through: Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate for NDMC.
                Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, Advocate for R-2&3.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                    No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?             No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner claims to have been running/operating a taxi stand

under licence from the respondent no.1 NDMC from a pavement at Mandir

Marg, New Delhi for the last 30-35 years. It is the case of the petitioner that

the respondent no.1 NDMC, on 25th April, 2010, arrived at the said taxi

stand and threatened to dispossess the petitioner forcibly and without reason.

The petitioner instituted a suit for injunction against the respondent no.1

NDMC in the Court of the Civil Judge, Delhi seeking direction to restrain

the NDMC from dispossessing him. There was no interim order in the said

suit. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner was dispossessed,

according to him, on 9th June, 2010. The petitioner has now filed this writ

petition claiming the relief of repossession of the same site. The counsel for

the petitioner states that the suit earlier filed has become infructuous

upon the petitioner being dispossessed.

2. The petition came up first before this court on 26 th July, 2010 when it

was inquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to under what

right/policy is the petitioner claiming the right of repossession. The counsel

had sought time to reply. The counsel for the respondent no.1 NDMC

appearing on advance notice was also directed to obtain instructions with

respect to the policy qua such taxi stand booths and as to till which date the

licence of the petitioner was valid and whether any intimation was given to

the petitioner of the licence having come to an end or of having been

terminated.

3. The counsel for the petitioner has not filed any further documents. He

reiterates that the petitioner having remained on the site for long, has a right

for possession. However, in view of the admitted position of the said long

possession/occupation being with the permission and under licence of the

respondent no.1 NDMC, that alone would not vest any right in the

petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner on inquiry fairly admits that the

licence of the petitioner was not being renewed for the last several years.

He however places emphasis on the letter dated 25th March, 2004 of the

respondent no.1 NDMC directing the shifting of the booth of the petitioner

to another location and on the letter dated 1 st April, 2005 of the respondent

no.1 NDMC demanding arrears of licence fee from the petitioner till the end

of the month of March, 2005. However, the same do not advance the case

of the petitioner. There is nothing to show that the occupation by the

petitioner after 31st March, 2005 was authorized. Else, the street/pavement

from which/where the taxi stand booth of the petitioner so permitted to run

vests in the respondent no.1 NDMC and the petitioner has no right to the

same.

4. The counsel for the respondent NDMC though has not shown any

policy, has placed before this court, the order dated 25 th April, 2005 of the

respondent NDMC deleting the site from which the petitioner was

functioning from the approved list of taxi stand booths in the NDMC area

and also holding the operation of the business by the petitioner from another

site in the vicinity to be unauthorized. He has also placed before this court a

copy of the letter dated 13th June, 2005 of the NDMC to the petitioner

rejecting the representation of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative

site. Attention is also invited to the Resolution No. 16 dated 18 th February,

1992 of the NDMC for phasing out of the taxi stand booth from the area and

proposing the operation of wireless operated taxi service. It is also stated

that the site where the taxi stand of the petitioner was located was required

by the Ministry of Urban Development of the Government of India for re-

development and for this reason also the petitioner cannot be allowed to

reoccupy the same.

5. In the aforesaid state of affairs, no order permitting the petitioner to

reoccupy the site as claimed can be granted. In so far as the case of the

petitioner of dispossession without notice is concerned, the petitioner, if

entitled to, may prefer a claim against the respondent no.1 NDMC for

damages. The taxi stand booths as aforesaid appears to be in the same

position/category as tehbazari / hawking sites, licences wherefor are now

governed by the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2004. The

dismissal of this petition would not come in the way of the petitioner

approaching the Zonal Vending Committee of the respondent no.1 NDMC

or any other entity under the said Policy, if so entitled, to claim relocation.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 6th August, 2010 M