Delhi High Court
Bengal Sellers Association vs N.D.M.C. & Another on 17 February, 2010
Author: G. S. Sistani
06.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 426/2010
% Judgment Delivered on: 17.02.2010
BENGAL SELLERS ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Chandra Shekhar and Mr. Saurabh
Upadhyay, Advs.
versus
N.D.M.C. & ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner is an association of bangle sellers, who are stated to
have been selling bangles for decades at Hanuman Temple
Complex, operating from a specifically demarcated open space /
Tharas and they have been paying licence fee to respondent no.1
from time to time. At request of the members of the association,
the NDMC offered to allot tharas from amongst the existing vacant
tharas at Hanuman Temple complex by draw of lots.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner association submits that at the
time when the NDMC had issued the letter dated 07.06.2005 for
allotment of tharas, there were 20 vacant tharas available and no
new construction was proposed to be made at the site. During the
period 2005 - December, 2009, no action was taken by the NDMC
to construct fresh tharas to accommodate the members of the
petitioner association. On 16.12.2009, the petitioner association
received a letter calling upon its members to participate in the
draw of lots to be held on 21.12.2009 at 12.00 Noon in the Council
Room, 3rd floor, Palika Kendra. Members of the petitioner
association were also requested to bring with them photocopy of
their proof of identity to enable them to join in the draw of lots.
When the members of the petitioner association reached Palika
Kendra, they came to know that six members of their association
had been clubbed along with other occupants of the sites and
therefore they did not participate in the draw of lots. After giving a
protest letter the members of the petitioner association walked
out.
3. Grievance of the petitioner association is that two separate
category of persons, who were dissimilarly situated have been
clubbed together by the NDMC in the draw of lots, which was held
on 21.12.2009, which has caused serious prejudice to their rights.
4. Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned Standing counsel for the
respondent/NDMC, on the directions of this Court has filed a status
report. As per this status report, all the members of the petitioner
association had written a letter to the Chairman/NDMC on
21.08.2009 requesting the respondent/NDMC to allot tharas to the
allottees by holding a draw. This letter was signed by all the six
members of the petitioner association. As per this status report,
16 persons whose tharas had been demolished were included in
the draw of lots, which was held on 21.12.2009. The original
documents have been placed on record to show their names,
addresses, trade, date of allotment of the allottees including their
signatures.
5. Learned standing counsel for the respondent further submits that
original slips/parchis bearing the signatures of the allottees have
been placed on record of this Court to show that the draw was
conducted in a fair manner. Counsel further submits that the
NDMC has followed the prescribed and a fair procedure by
including the names of all the allottees for the draw of lots.
Counsel also submits that initially all the allottees including the
members of the petitioner association were carrying on their trade
as tehbazari holders at tharas / open to sky shops. The NDMC has
now provided shops with shutters to all the sixteen allottees
including the present petitioners. Counsel next submits that out of
the six members of the petitioner association, five had come to
attend the meeting, but only three members accepted the
allotment and made the payment. Counsel also submits that out
of these five members, two members - namely, Sh. Shafiq and Sh.
Mohd. Ahmed, left the meeting without signing the attendance
sheet.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner association submits that these
three members have made the payment under pressure and
under threat of cancellation.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two
shops are lying vacant and in case the NDMC considers the
allotment in favour of the two members of the petitioner
association their grievance would be satisfied.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
original documents placed on record. I am satisfied that the NDMC
has conducted the draw in a fair manner on 26.12.2009 and 16
allotments have been made, possession of which has also been
handed over to the allottees. I find no illegality or infirmity in the
procedure followed by the NDMC. The petitioners have been
provided shops with shutters, whereas in the past, petitioners
were carrying on their businesses on tharas / open to sky shop.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed. It would, however, be open to
the members of petitioner association to approach the NDMC for
allotment of two shops, which are stated to be lying vacant. The
NDMC will consider the request of the petitioner association
expeditiously.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
February 17, 2010
'msr'
