Chander Sekhar Sethi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4628 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of decision: 30th September, 2010.

+                           W.P.(C) No.13958/2009
%

CHANDER SEKHAR SETHI                                     ..... PETITIONER
                Through:                  Mr. Prag Chawla & Mr. Manoj
                                          Kapoor, Advocates

                                      Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.             ..... RESPONDENTS
                  Through: Mr. Arun K. Sharma, Advocate for R-1
                           Mr. Ajay Arora with Mr. Kapil Dutta,
                           Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed & Ms. Mini
                           Pushkarna, Advocates for R-2.
                           Mr. P.C. Sen & Ms. Swati Verma,
                           Advocates for R-3.
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 petitioner, carrying on business of water cooling plant and plying

water trollies on streets and at other public places, has filed this petition to

restrain the respondents Govt. of NCT Delhi, MCD & NDMC from

interfering with the business of the petitioner of plying water trollies at the

designated places with respect whereto license has been issued to the

petitioner. The present petition was filed apprehending disturbance owing to

the orders in WP(C) No.2199/2007.

2. Notice of the petition was issued and vide interim order dated 18th

December, 2009, it was directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to

continue to park his water trollies at the sites designated by the respondents

in the license issued to the petitioner. The said order has continued till now.

3. The respondent no.3 NDMC has filed a counter affidavit listing out

the places / locations with respect whereto the license has been granted and

further stating that there is no proposal to disturb the petitioner. It is further

clarified that the license granted to the petitioner is not with respect to any of

the sites subject matter of WP(C) No.2199/2007.

4. The respondent no.2 MCD has also filed a counter affidavit

confirming that the license had been granted for parking the trollies and

serving water at the designated places and confirming that there was no

occasion to disturb the petitioner if acts in terms of the license.

5. The counsel for the respondent no.2 MCD has today in Court

reiterated the said position.

6. In view of the aforesaid stand of respondents MCD & NDMC, the

writ petition is disposed of with the directions that if the petitioner in terms

of the license granted to him continues to park the trollies and serve / sell

water from the designated / licensed sites, the said business of the petitioner

shall not be disturbed. However, the petitioner shall be liable for action if in

breach of the terms of the license.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 30th September, 2010 'gsr'..