Delhi High Court
Vinay Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. vs N.D.M.C. & Ors. on 25 April, 2011
Author: G. S. Sistani
44-46.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15507/2006
CUT FLOWER GROWERS AND SUPPLIERS ASSO. ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Rajiv Awasthy, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Adv. for NDMC.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for
respondent/review petitioner (D.A.M.B.)
Mr. Subhash Sharma, Adv. for Delhi
Agricultural Board.
Ms. Bandana Shukla, Adv. for respondent
no.1.
Mr. A.K. Tandon, Adv. for respondent.
+ W.P.(C) 1424/2007
VINAY KUMAR AGGARWAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Ajay Kumar Tandon, Adv.
versus
N.D.M.C. & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Adv. for the NDMC.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for respondent
review petitioner D.A.M.B.
Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pankaj
Singh, Adv. for respondent no.5.
+ W.P.(C) 13768/2009
PHOOL PATTI UPTADAK KALYAN SAMITI(REGD) ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Bahar-U-Barqi, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Adv. for NDMC.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for
W.P.(C)NO.873/2010 Page 1 of 5
respondent/Review Petitioner (D.A.M.B.)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
ORDER
% 25.04.2011
CM NO.10249/2010 (DELAY of 138 days) IN W.P.(C) 15507/2006
CM NO.9502/2010 (DELAY of 138 days) IN W.P.(C) 13768/2009
1. Learned counsel for the non-applicants submit that they have no
objection if the present application is allowed.
2. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the application and in view of
the stand taken, delay in filing the review petition is condoned.
3. Applications stand disposed of.
Review Pet. No.40/2010 in W.P.(C) 1424/2007
4. Three writ petitions, wherein entirely different reliefs were prayed,
were disposed of by a common order dated 10.12.2009, against
which the review petitions have been filed by the review petitioner,
Delhi Agricultural Board Marketing, respondent no.7 in
W.P.(C)No.1424/2007. While in W.P.(C)No.1424/2007, the petitioner
sought a direction to respondent no.1, NDMC, to immediately
remove the illegal encroachment on the pavement, road and
footpath in and around the area of Jain Mandir Lane, Connaught
Place, New Delhi, the second petition being W.P.(C)No.15507/2006
was filed by Cut Flower Growers and Suppliers Association with a
prayer that a direction be issued to the respondents ordering them
to forthwith decide 517 applications already received pursuant to
Board Resolution for categories A and B traders of Connaught Place
Flower Market and also direct respondents to allot shop to the
successful applicants/traders at Okhla as per Board Resolution
dated 17.11.2004. The third petition, being W.P.(C)No.13768/2009,
was filed by Phool Patti Utpadak Kalyan Samiti praying for issuance
of a direction to respondents no.2 and 3 to grant licences to the
members of the petitioner Samiti and also to allot a permanent site
to enable them to carry out their business.
5. During the pendency of these matters an agreed order was passed
on 10.12.2009 whereby it was agreed that flower mandis, carrying
out their business at Baba Kharak Singh Marg, be shifted to Okhla
Mandi.
6. By the present review petition, the review petitioner has prayed
that flower mandis be shifted to Gazipur instead of Okhla.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.1424/2007 submits
that petitioners have no objection in case the review petition, filed
by Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board is allowed for the reason that
petitioners are only interested in shifting of mandi from the
pavement, road and footpath in and around the area of Jain Mandir
Lance Connaught Place, New Delhi.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Delhi Flowers, Cutters,
Growers and Suppliers Welfare Society (Regd.), Cut Flower Growers
and Suppliers Association and Phool Patti Utpadak Kalyan Samiti
(Regd.), submit that prayers made by the petitioner in the petition
may be allowed as their clients are willing to give an undertaking to
the court that no member of their association shall encroach on the
pavements, roads and footpaths and the area in and around Jain
Mandir Lane, Connaught Place, forthwith. Counsel further submit
that in fact Jain Mandir Lane has already been barricaded by the
police. Let a formal undertaking be filed in this Court within a
period of two weeks from today. The statement made is accepted
and the same shall be treated as undertaking to the court.
9. Accordingly, review petition is allowed. Rights of the respondents
with respect to shifting of flower mandi are kept open.
10. Review petition stands disposed of.
Review Pet. No.326/2010 in W.P.(C) 15507/2006
11. Mr. Rajiv Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.(C)No.15507/2006, submits that petitioners have no objection
if the flower mandi is shifted from the existing site at Jain Mandir
Lane, Babakharak Singh Marg, to Gazipur. Counsel further submits
that all the licence holders have already taken possession. Counsel
also submits that he has no objection if the order dated 10.12.2009
is recalled.
12. Accordingly, review petition is allowed.
Review Pet. No.296/2010 in W.P.(C) 13768/2009.
13. Mr. Bahar-U-Barqi, learned counsel for the petitioner, opposes this
review petition on the ground that his clients are willing to shift to
Okhla Mandi and not to Gazipur Mandi. Mr. Barqi, Advocate, admits
that the prayer made in this writ petition was with regard to grant
of licences. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner
that application of some of the petitioners have been considered
while application of some of the petitioners have been rejected.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner Samiti
has no objection if the review petition is allowed keeping in view
that there was no such prayer made in the writ petition, however,
prays that the question with regard to shifting of flower mandi be
kept open qua the petitioner, as the petitioner has already filed a
substantive writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner also seeks
liberty to take recourse to such other remedies which may be
available to the petitioner in accordance with law in those cases
where application has been rejected. Ordered accordingly.
15. Review Petition is allowed. Rights of the petitioner regarding
shifting are kept open.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
April 25, 2011
'msr'
