Delhi High Court
Sh. Nand Kishor & Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... on 24 February, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
45&24
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1176/2010
SH.NAND KISHOR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ninad Laud & Mr. Jayant Mohan,
Advocates.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR......
Respondents
Through Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate.
+ W.P.(C) 12166/2009
NAND KISHOR AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ninad Laud & Mr. Jayant Mohan,
Advocates.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR .. Respondents
Through Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 24.02.2010
1. Two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners. Firstly, it is stated that the show cause notice issued by the
respondent-MCD amounts to over-reaching the order dated 28th October,
2005 passed by the Supreme Court. Secondly, it is stated that the
W.P. (C) Nos. 1176/2010 & 12166/2009 Page 1
respondents have already pre-decided the issue and the show cause notice is
merely an empty formality.
2. The petitioners herein were in occupation of shops at Parcel Office,
Kodia Pul, Old Delhi Railway Station, Delhi. The said shops were acquired
for Delhi Metro Transport System and the petitioners were dispossessed.
There was a proposal that the petitioners should be allotted alternative
accommodation/plots in Central Market, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi. A
resolution to the same effect was ratified by the Municipal Council on 25th
October, 2004.
3. Some of the teh bazari holders/hawkers operating in Lajpat Nagar
area had filed applications and contempt applications before the Supreme
Court in W.P. (C) No. 1699/1987 titled Sudhir Madan and Others versus
MCD and Others. It appears that some orders were also passed by the
Supreme Court in that petition/applications. The petitioners herein filed an
application in the said petition as Municipal Corporation had refused to
hand over possession of the plots to the petitioners because of pendency of
the said petition and interim order passed by the Supreme Court. This
application was disposed of vide order dated 28th October, 2005, which
reads as under:-
"I.A. No...../05 in IA 394 In IA 356 In WP(C)
1699/87:
The applicants in this application are
persons who were having shops near the old
Delhi Railway Station. They had to be shifted
from there on account of construction of the
Delhi Metro. By resolution of the Standing
Committee dated 7th July, 2004 they were
allotted alternative site in Central Market,
Lajpat Nagar-II New Delhi. This resolution has
been ratified by the Municipal Council on 25th
October, 2004. However, in view of the order
of this Court dated 9th August, 2004 the
W.P. (C) Nos. 1176/2010 & 12166/2009 Page 2
Municipal Corporation has not handed over the
possession of the lands in question to the
applicants. The petitioners in IA 394 namely,
Ram Swaroop & Ors. have objected on the
ground that they held licenses to hold tehbazari
in Lajpat Nagar area but they have been shifted
on account of bomb blast. They have claimed
that they should be allotted alternative sites for
their Business. We will consider what relief
should be granted to petitioners-Ram Swaroop
and Ors. But we find no reason why Nand
Kishor and Ashok Kumar the applicants should
not be given possession of the lands allotted to
them. We, therefore, permit the Municipal
Corporation to issue necessary orders to hand
over possession of lands allotted to them. So
far as the case of the petitioners in IA 394 is
concerned, we will later consider directing the
Municipal Corporation to give alternative sites
to them if any alternative site is available.
However, the applicants in IA 394 are permitted
to assist the municipal authorities to locate
possible available sites in the areas of their
choice, and if possible, the Municipal
Corporation may take appropriate steps in
accordance with law to allot them alternative
sites notwithstanding the pendency of their
application.
List the matters on 28th October, 2005."
4. The Supreme Court by the aforesaid order had clarified that
Municipal Corporation of Delhi was at liberty to hand over possession of
the plots to the applicants therein, the petitioners herein. It is wrong to
interpret the said order as a direction given by the Supreme Court to
Municipal Corporation of Delhi to make the allotment to the petitioners. It
is also wrong to suggest that MCD should approach the Supreme Court as it
wants modification or clarification of any direction given by the aforesaid
W.P. (C) Nos. 1176/2010 & 12166/2009 Page 3
order. The subject matter of the application before the Supreme Court was
limited and the petitioners had sought clarification that allotment made by
MCD should not be denied on account of stay orders passed in the said
petitions. The Supreme Court permitted Municipal Corporation of Delhi to
allot sites to the petitioners, in spite of petition/applications pending before
them.
5. The second contention of the petitioners is also misconceived.
Allotments have been made and the petitioners have been in possession of
land since 2005. It, however, transpires that enquiries have been conducted
by the respondents in respect of certain illegalities in the said allotment.
The petitioners have enclosed with the writ petition Annexure P-8, which
gives some details of the enquiries conducted by the respondents. On the
basis of the enquiries, the respondents have now issued show cause notice
to the petitioners dated 17th February, 2010. The petitioners have been
given an opportunity to reply to the said show cause notice. After
considering the reply to the show cause notice, it is obvious that the
respondents will pass an order dealing with the contentions raised.
6. I do not think it will be appropriate for this Court to interfere and
interject with the proceedings initiated by the respondents by issue of show
cause notice. The petitioners will be at liberty to challenge and question
adverse order, if any, after the same is passed. However, to protect the
interest of the petitioners, adverse order will not be given effect to for a
period of fifteen days to enable the petitioners to redress their grievance.
The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
FEBRUARY 24, 2010
VKR
W.P. (C) Nos. 1176/2010 & 12166/2009 Page 4
