M/S. Himayalan Travel Tour (I) ... vs M/S.Indian Tourism Development ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 222 Del

10
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 10880/2009

       M/S. HIMAYALAN TRAVEL TOUR (I) LTD     .... Petitioner
                         Through    Mr. V. Sharma, Advocate.
                  versus

       M/S, INDIAN TORISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ... Respondent
                         Through    Mr. Ajay Kapur, Advocate with Mr. Sudhir
                                    Khurana, Sr. Assistant, Ashoka Hotel.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                             ORDER

% 15.01.2010

1. By the impugned order dated 7th August, 2009, the Estate Officer has

rejected the application of the petitioner, M/s. Himalayan Travel Tours (I) Pvt. Ltd.

for production of documents by the respondent No.1, Indian Tourism

Development Corporation Limited. The Estate Officer in his order has recorded

that any agreement between the respondent No.1 and a third party is not relevant

for adjudication of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

2. During the course of hearing counsel for the respondent No.1 states that

the original/first agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No.1, if

available in their records, will be supplied within a period of ten days.

3. With regard to the agreement between the respondent No.1 and M/s.

Capitol and M/s. K.L.J. Developers Pvt. Ltd., counsel for the respondent No.1 points

out that the application does not state how and why the said agreement is

WPC No.10880/2009 Page 1 relevant.

4. As far as supply of agreement between the respondent No.1 and M/s.

Capitol and M/s. K.L.J. Developers Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, the application filed by

the petitioner is entirely vague. It does not even mention the license fee payable

by the said parties and why and how the said documents are relevant to show

arbitrariness. It is a case of a blind allegation. In these circumstances, I do not see

any reason to interfere with the order of the Estate Officer, rejecting the request

of the petitioner for supply of the said documents.

5. Counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing submits that the

petitioner is ready and willing to pay the license fee as is being paid by M/s. Capitol

and M/s. K.L.J. Developers Pvt. Ltd. It is open to the petitioner to raise such plea, if

available, before the Estate Officer. This, however, does not mean that the

petitioner is entitled to copy of the agreement between the respondent No.1 and

M/s. Capitol and M/s. K.L.J. Developers Pvt. Ltd.

6. Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the license agreement with M/s. Capitol and M/s. K.L.J. Developers Pvt. Ltd. is of no relevance to the proceedings, which have been initiated under the the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. He states that the respondent No.1 will be entitled to take necessary objections if any such plea is taken before the Estate Officer. He further submits that the petitioner is deliberately delaying the matter.

The Writ petition is disposed of.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

       JANUARY 15, 2010
       NA/P

WPC No.10880/2009                                                                Page 2