Mehta Taxi & Travel Service vs Commissioner Of Police & Others
2010 Latest Caselaw 855 Del

19
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 2114/2007


%                            Date of decision 15th February, 2010

      MEHTA TAXI & TRAVEL SERVICE &      ..... Petitioner
                     Through Mr.Shyam Moorjani, advocate.

                   versus

      COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.      ..... Respondents
                    Through Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, advocate for
                    MCD.
                    Mr.Sumer Kumar Sethi, advocate for DDA.
                    Ms. Sana Ansari, advocate for R.1-3.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA


                                  ORDER

1. Status report is taken on record.

2. The petitioners herein pray for direction to restrain the

respondents from removing their taxi stand site from the vacant

land near Vasant Apartment playground opposite Vasant Niketan,

Vasant Lok, New Delhi without providing them with an alternative

site in the vicinity. They have challenged the conduct of the

respondents in removing their taxi stand on 6th July, 2007.

3. Respondent-MCD in their counter affidavit has stated that

they had granted NOC dated 8th May, 1996 for notification of a

general taxi stand to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Trafic) and

the said respondent was receiving tehbazari fee from the

WPC No.2114/2007 Page 1 petitioners. Respondent-DDA in their counter affidavit had taken a

contradictory stand and stated that the taxi stand was

unauthorizedly operating from the green land-the site in question. It

was further stated that the said land on which the taxi stand is

located is an acquired land and vests with the DDA. It is further

stated that DDA did not make any allotment or give permission for a

taxi stand or travel agency at the said site.

4. In view of the contradictory stand taken by the MCD and the

DDA, vide order dated 15th January, 2010, it was directed that a

meeting would be held. Pursuant to the said Order, a joint meeting

were held in the Chamber of Chief Legal Officer (DDA) on 2nd

February, 2010 and 10th February, 2010. Thereafter, a joint survey

was also conducted and it was unanimously resolved that the

land/site in question belongs to the DDA and not to MCD.

Admittedly, DDA has not issued NOC or any consent letter

permitting operation and setting up a taxi stand. Resultantly, NOC

issued by the MCD is of no consequence as MCD is not the owner of

the said land and is not entitled to issue NOC in respect of the said

land.

5. I have also examined the order dated 7th April, 1997 issued by

the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Delhi. The said order is

not addressed to a particular individual/person. It authorizes parking

of five taxis in the said site. No particular person can claim any right

to park their taxi to the exclusion of others in terms of the said

WPC No.2114/2007 Page 2 order. It is apparent that some taxi drivers had occupied the said

area, as is clear from the photographs filed by the petitioner

themselves after the demolition action. This was not the purport and

purpose behind the order dated 7th April, 1997. DLT taxis are meant

for benefit of citizens of Delhi and taxis are required to move around

and when they are vacant and available for hire they can be parked

at the earmarked parking spaces available all over Delhi. Deputy

Commissioner of Police (Traffic) in their counter affidavit have

clarified this aspect by stating that the taxi stands are not notified in

the name of a particular individual and nor any licence to any

individual to possess and control the site has been granted. But this

was precisely what was happening. The present writ petition has

been filed by Mehta Taxi and Travel Services and others as if they

have individual or personal right to exclusively occupy and

permanent park their taxis. Photographs placed on record by the

petitioners show that the respondent-DDA had taken action of

removing/demolishing the permanent structures constructed by the

petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners have been using the taxi stand since 1997. The said

argument cannot be accepted for the reason that no particular

individual has been granted licence by the Deputy Commissioner of

Police (Trafic) to park taxis. By order dated 7th April, 1997, the

area/site in question was earmarked for general parking of five

WPC No.2114/2007 Page 3 taxis.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are entitled to drive taxis and earn their livelihood. The

said rights are not being denied to the petitioners. The petitioners

are entitled to drive taxis and earn their livelihood. The only

question raised in the present case is whether the petitioners are

entitled to occupy the said site in question as per the order dated 7 th

April, 1997 and treat the same as their own personal parking lot.

This is not permitted and allowed. Moreover, DDA has claimed

ownership of the said land and it is now accepted by the MCD that

DDA is the owner of the said land/site in question. DDA has also

stated that the Vasant Apartment Residents Welfare Association had

written to the Lt.Governor, Vice Chairman, DDA and Commissioner

of Police for removal of the taxi stand from the site in question. It is

stated that the land in question is green land and cannot be used for

commercial activities as per the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021. In these

circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition

and the same is dismissed. However, as clarified above, the

petitioners will be entitled to operate their individual taxis and park

their taxis at any of the earmarked general parking spots meant for

taxis in Delhi. No costs.

DASTI.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

         FEBRUARY 15, 2010
         P



WPC No.2114/2007                                                    Page 4