Delhi High Court
Sudesh Kumar Araora vs D.M.Sapolia And Others on 23 July, 2010
Author: G. S. Sistani
10.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment dated 23rd July, 2010
+ CONT.CAS(C) 7/2008
SUDESH KUMAR ARORA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Naresh K. Thanai, Adv.
versus
D.M.SAPOLIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the Judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL):
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents
have willfully violated the orders passed by this Court on 3.8.2004
in W.P.(C)No.3005/2003 and on 31.10.2006 in Cont.
Cas(C)No.574/2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was
running a shop at Kashmiri Gate. In view of the DMRC project, the
shop of the petitioner was removed and an alternate shop was
made available to him being shop no.29 at ISBT, Kashmere Gate,
New Delhi. The petitioner, however, sought a direction from this
Court by filing W.P.(C)No.3005/2003 that he should be treated as
similarly situated evictees of 'Dhaba Block'. The writ petition was
allowed and the following order was passed on 3.8.2004.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
03.08.2004
Present : Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate for the
respondents.
CONT.CAS(C)No.7/2008 Page 1 of 5
WP (C) 3005/2003
The petitioner is a physically challenged person
suffering from 45% disability and was displaced from his
allotted shop in view of the DMRC project.
The limited grievance of the petitioner is that the
petitioner is being treated differently from the other
persons who have been displaced as a consequence of the
DMRC project and allotted shops.
The only defence taken in the counter-affidavit is that
a policy was framed but only for evictees of dhaba block of
Kashmere Gate. It is stated that petitioner is in a different
block and could not be covered by the policy. I fail to
appreciate the distinction since once the petitioner is
evicted from the same area under the DMRC project, there
will apparently be no distinction between the evictees. I am
thus of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to
be treated at par with the other evictees of ISBT who were
rehabilitated. All these evictions took place as a
consequence of the DMRC project.
In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that
respondents should work out the similar parameters to
apply the same to the case of the petitioner as applied to
other evictees of DMRC project from ISBT where the
petitioner was originally located.
The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
terms.
CM 5113/2003
Dismissed.
August 03, 2004 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J
3. As the order dated 3.8.2004 passed in W.P.(C)No.3005/2003 was
not complied with, the petitioner filed contempt case no.574/2006
before this Court. While disposing of the contempt petition on
31.10.2006 a direction was issued to the respondents to ensure
that a suitable alternative shop is handed over to the petitioner
within eight weeks subject to availability.
4. Although a trolley has been allotted to the petitioner, which has
been duly accepted by him. Grievance of the petitioner is that the
respondents have not charged the rates as per the policy as
directed by this court in its order dated 3.8.2004 while disposing
CONT.CAS(C)No.7/2008 Page 2 of 5
of the writ petition and the subsequent order passed on
31.10.2006 in contempt petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the order
dated 3.8.2004 the petitioner was entitled to be treated at par
with the other evictees of ISBT and, thus, the petitioner would be
covered by the policy and rates fixed therein. Thus the
respondents cannot discriminate against the petitioner and charge
rates in excess of the policy.
6. Mr. Naresh K. Thanai, counsel for the petitioner, submits that one
Mrs. Chandra Kanta Nanda, was initially charged market rates vide
communication dated 26.9.2001, but the mistake was rectified by
a communication dated 5.1.2009. Copies of both these
communications have been placed on record.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no
willful violation of the orders passed by this Court in view of the
fact that while allotting shop no.29, ISBT, the policy was uniformly
applied to the case of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that
while allotting shop no.29, ISBT, the petitioner was charged rates
as per the policy. Counsel also submits that as this shop was not
suitable to the petitioner he requested for another shop. The
petitioner was allotted a trolley, which was duly accepted by him
and has also signed all the necessary papers including the Clause
by which the rates have been notified and thus, at this stage, the
petitioner is estopped from raising the plea with regard to fixation
of rates.
8. I have heard counsel for the parties and also perused the
pleadings and the annexures filed along with the pleadings. The
order dated 31.10.2006 read with order dated 3.8.2004 makes it
CONT.CAS(C)No.7/2008 Page 3 of 5
absolutely clear that the respondents are to consider the case of
the petitioner for allotment of an alternate shop based on the
policy formulated. As per the policy the petitioner was to be
charged the rates prevalent at the relevant time. This court while
disposing of the contempt petition on 31.10.2006 made an
observation that the question of rates no longer survives as the
petitioner is to be treated at par with other allottees, who were
initially given other allotment of shops after they made a request
and were given alternate re-allotments. The Court directed the
respondents to ensure that a suitable alternate shop be handed
over to the petitioner. The order dated 31.10.2006 reads as under:
ORDER
31.10.2006
1. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by
filing WP(C)3005/2003. He had been allotted some
premises for the purpose of selling food stuffs, on
compassionate basis, as he is a person with disability.
2. The Delhi Rail Metro Corporation project was sought to
be implemented; as a result the Petitioner and other
persons, shopkeepers in various areas including the
premises occupied by the petitioner and another place
known as dhaba block were sought to be removed.
The petitioner was offered an alternative shop being
No.29. Hence approached the Court claiming that
those premises were not suitable having regard to the
location of a toilet adjacent to it. Other grievances too
were raised. The petitioner wanted similar treatment
along with others who had been allotted alternative
shop after relocation. This Court disposed off his
petition, directing that he too ought to be treated in a
similar manner as other allottees be given the facility
of an alternative shop, (alternative shop No.29).
3. In these proceedings, the only question which has
been agitated (since the grievance with regard to the
rates no longer survives) - is whether the
Respondents had complied with the directions to treat
the Petitioner at par with the other allottees who were
initially given other allotment of a shop and after they
made a request, given alternative re-allottments.
4. Having considered the materials on record, I am of the
opinion that the Respondents could not have made
any distinction between the Petitioner and the other
allottees. Seven other instances were similar allottees
were shifted to other shops after relocation have been
brought to the notice of the Court. They have not been
denied. The distinction sought to be made is that
those persons did not take possession earlier. I am of
the opinion that such a specious distinction is not
enough for the Respondents to discriminate and
certainly not to defeat the order of the court. In these
circumstances the
Respondents shall ensure that a suitable alternative
shop is handed over to the petitioner within eight
weeks from today subject to availability.
The contempt petition is accordingly disposed
off.
9. A joint reading of the aforesaid two orders would show that when
the allotment of an alternative shop was made the respondents
could not have even demanded additional rates from the
petitioner than what was to be charged as per the policy.
Accordingly, six weeks time is granted to the respondents to
comply with the order dated 3.8.2004 and 31.10.2006. In case the
order is not complied with within the time allowed, liberty, is
granted to the petitioner to revive this petition to enable this
Court to hear the matter on contempt against the respondents.
10. Petition stands disposed of in view of above.
11. Dasti.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
July 23, 2010
'msr'
