Smt. Parveen Suri vs Mcd & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4765 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           Date of decision: 8th October, 2010.

+                                 W.P.(C) No.6563/2010
%

         SMT. PARVEEN SURI                                ..... PETITIONER
                      Through:            Mr. Jawahar Chawla, Adv.

                                       Versus

         MCD & ANR.                                     ..... RESPONDENTS
                            Through:      Mr. Mukesh Gupta with Mr. Sumit
                                          Gupta, Advocates with Mr. Satya
                                          Varat (H.C.).

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?              No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?       No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The counsel for the respondent MCD in compliance of the earlier

order dated 27th September, 2010 has handed over in Court documents

containing the procedure and criteria followed for allotment of plots in

Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi. On perusal of the same, it is not

deemed necessary to call for the counter affidavit of the respondent MCD

and the counsels have been heard finally on the writ petition.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning the order dated

11th September, 2007 of the respondent MCD holding the petitioner

ineligible for allotment of a plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi

and seeking direction to the respondent MCD to allot a plot of land

admeasuring 220 sq. mts. to the petitioner, as applied for by her on 31st

March, 1984.

3. The petitioner had submitted the application dated 31 st March, 1984

(supra) in response to the Scheme notified by the respondent MCD for

allotting plots in a Transport Complex to be developed by it. The petitioner

along with the application also deposited a sum of `25,000/- as earnest

money deposit. There was delay in development of the said Complex. The

petitioner in between, in the year 1992 changed her residence and notified

the respondent MCD of the same. The respondent MCD in or about the year

2001 issued notices at the old address of the petitioner calling upon her to

appear along with proof of being engaged in transport business. Public

notices calling upon all the applicants/registrants to appear, were also

published. The petitioner however did not appear before the respondent

MCD and was accordingly not allotted the plot. The petitioner filed

W.P.(C) No.6711/2005 in this Court. This Court finding that the respondent

MCD had not given the notice at the changed address of the petitioner, vide

order dated 20th April, 2006 disposed of the writ petition directing the

petitioner to appear before the Director, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,

Delhi along with all the documents and directed the MCD to determine the

eligibility of the petitioner for allotment.

4. The MCD vide its order dated 20th August, 2007 after going through

the documents submitted by the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner

held that the petitioner had been dealing in the business of electrical

items/repairs; that there is nothing to show that she was dealing in transport

business and thus held the petitioner not entitled to allotment of plot in the

Transport Nagar aforesaid.

5. The petitioner then filed W.P.(C) No.3431/2008 in this Court

challenging the order dated 20th August, 2007 (supra) of the MCD. This

Court being of the view that the petitioner had applied for allotment of a plot

for workshop and not as a transporter and finding that the order dated 20 th

August, 2007 had not considered the said aspect, set aside the same vide

order dated 12th January, 2010 and remanded the matter to the MCD for

passing a fresh order.

6. It is in pursuance thereto an order dated 30th April, 2010 has been

made by the MCD. Though from the body of the writ petition, it is clear

that the petitioner in this writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 30th

April, 2010 but has in the prayer paragraph wrongly given the date of the

order challenged as 11th September, 2007.

7. The MCD in the order dated 30th April, 2010 has noted that the

proposal for setting up a Transport Nagar at Wazirabad was mooted in 1976

with the idea was to decongest the city by curtailing the movement of trucks

and also by shifting workshops and godowns to the outskirts of the city;

ultimately the land for the said Transport Nagar was made available by the

DDA and the project agreed to be executed on "No-Profit, No-Loss" basis

and on „self financing pattern‟; that the allotment of plots in the said

Transport Nagar were to be made to the applicants subject to their eligibility

being established; that the Transport Nagar is to accommodate those people

who were engaged in transport and transport allied businesses after they

were shifted from city areas. The order records that the petitioner has failed

to prove that she was running a transport business. It was further held that

though the petitioner had applied for a plot of land for a workshop but she

did not qualify for the same also since she was not found to have been

carrying on a transport allied business also.

8. The counsel for the respondent MCD has produced in the Court the

Minutes of the Meeting held on 16th September, 1985 by the Chief

Secretary, Delhi Administration regarding the said Transport Nagar. In the

said meeting it was decided to constitute a screening committee so that only

the bona fide transporters, workshop owners, sparepart dealers get allotment.

The other documents handed over also reflect the same position.

9. The question which therefore arises is whether any ground for

interference in writ jurisdiction is made out in the finding of the MCD that

the petitioner had failed to establish that she was carrying on the business of

a workshop allied to transport business.

10. The petitioner has placed before this Court also the documents which

had been placed before the MCD and on the basis whereof the decision

impugned in this writ petition has been taken. However, from the said

documents all that can be made out is, that the petitioner was/is carrying on

business at Karol Bagh in the name of Suri Electricals. The rent receipts,

registration under the Delhi Shops & Establishments Act, 1954were in the

name of Suri Electricals only. The bank account of the petitioner was also in

the name of Suri Electricals. Purchase memos produced by the petitioner,

are also in the name of Suri Electricals. However, in the copies of the letters

written by the petitioner in the year 2006, on the letter heads, the name is

stated as Suri Auto Electricals. There is no explanation as to how and when

if at all the name was changed from Suri Electricals to Suri Auto Electricals.

Though the order dated 12th January, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.3431/2008 was

made on the premise that the claim of the petitioner was of carrying on a

workshop and not of transport business but in the letter dated 15 th May,

2006, the petitioner has claimed to be carrying on transport business and not

the business of a workshop for transport vehicles.

11. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that since all automobiles

also have electrical circuits, the petitioner carrying on business in the name

of Suri Electricals, is eligible for allotment of a plot. I cannot accept the

said position. All persons carrying on business of electrical goods and/or

repair of electrical goods cannot be said to be carrying on business allied to

transport merely because the transport vehicles also have an electrical

circuit. Though undoubtedly there are workshops specializing in automobile

electrical works also but it was for the petitioner to establish before the

respondent MCD and before this Court that it was engaged in the said

business. There is nothing to show the said position. The purchase memos

produced by the petitioner also do not show or establish that the petitioner

was engaged in the business of automobile electrical works.

12. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to why the

petitioner has not produced the documents showing employment of auto

electric mechanics, agreement with transporters to carry out electrical works

in the transport vehicles or document to show a regular course of activity of

repairing of electrical circuits and components in automobiles. The counsel

for the petitioner then contends that the business of the petitioner is of a

small scale of repairing two wheelers and maximum three wheelers and not

of transport vehicles and thus no such records are maintained. In my

opinion, on the said statement of the counsel for the petitioner alone, the

writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that the Sanjay

Gandhi Transport Nagar was established with the objectives aforesaid.

When we talk of transport vehicles, what is generally understood is

trucks/buses carrying on goods and passengers from one place to another

and not private vehicles as two wheelers, scooters and auto-rickshaw. The

purpose of the Transport Nagar on the outskirts was to prevent the entry of

heavy vehicles in the city and to at the same time decongest the city of the

workshops which the transport vehicles have to visit for their repairs,

services, overhauling etc. The Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, from the

documents produced was not intended for smaller private transport vehicles

as three wheelers and two wheelers which by their very nature are required

to be in the city and not to be on the outskirts of the city.

13. Personal experience shows that major component of the business of

those dealing with auto electrical was of batteries used in the automobiles.

It was put to the counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner if

engaged in the business could not produce the documents of sale/purchase

of automobiles batteries and/or of reconditioning the same and which also

required storage of acid and certain other chemicals requiring licence. The

counsel for the petitioner candidly admits that the petitioner was not

carrying on any such activity.

14. In the circumstances, no case for interference with the order of the

respondent MCD finding the petitioner to be ineligible for allotment of a

plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar is made out. The desire of the

petitioner for a plot inspite of being not engaged in the business/allied

business relating to transport is obvious. The rate/price at which the plots

have been allotted/are being allotted is far lower than the market price and

instances of trading in the plots are not unknown.

The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 8th October, 2010/„bs‟