Delhi High Court
Anita Aggi & Ors vs State & Ors on 8 August, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 8th August, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 5875/2007
ANITA AGGI & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.P. Sinha, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Najmi Waziri, Ms. Neha
Kapoor, Mr. Shoaib Haider, Mr.
Prem Kumar Mishra, Adv. for
GNCTD.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The sixteen petitioners claiming to be the licencees of space allotted
for PCO Booth at Inter State Bus Terminus at Kashmiri Gate, Anand Vihar
& Sarai Kale Khan filed this petition seeking mandamus to the respondents
to provide them relief of reduction of licence fee as they claim has been
granted to certain other allottees.
2. The counsel for the petitioners has today contended that of the
sixteen petitioners, ten are physically challenged; that the respondents have
vide letter dated 23rd February, 2007 (at page 27 of the paper book) to one
Smt. Seema Tiwari suffering from disability of sight, reduced the licence
fee payable from `2,143/- p.m. then payable by the petitioners also, to
`536/- per month. The petitioners claim to be similarly situated as Smt.
Seema Tiwari and seek similar reduction in the licence fee.
3. Notice of the petition was issued. The counsel for the petitioners
states that the petitioners till now have been paying licence fee in
accordance with the agreement and the concession in licence fee for which
the writ petition has been filed is for future only. He has also invited
attention to the order dated 22 nd July, 2009 in these proceedings wherein
direction was given to the respondent to consider allowing the petitioners
use of the space licenced to them for other purposes also since with the
advent of the mobiles the need for PCO has disappeared. He further
contends that during the process of re-development of ISBT, Kashmiri
Gate the petitioners have already vacated the sites earlier allotted to them
on the assurance of being granted alternative site upon re-development
being completed.
4. The counsel for the respondents contends that the writ petition has
become infructuous since the licences of the petitioners have already come
to an end and since the petitioners have now admittedly vacated their
respective sites. It is also controverted that any assurance as claimed by the
petitioners, has been meted out to the petitioners.
5. The counsel for the petitioners while reiterating that assurance has
been so meted out, states that the petitioners in this petition are not even
agitating such claim.
6. Thus the only question for adjudication is whether such of the
petitioners who are physically challenged, in the matter of determination of
the licence fee if any payable in future are entitled to be placed at par with
the concessions in licence fee granted to the licencees who are unable to
see.
7. The counsel for the respondents without prejudice to his contention
regarding the term of the licence has contended that the case of the
handicapped allottees shall be considered in accordance with the Policy in
that regard.
8. The counsel for the petitioners has stated that the other petitioners
are ex-servicemen are also entitled to the same concession.
9. I am unable to place the said petitioners at par with the physically
challenged persons. This Court in LPA No.285/2010 decided on 23 rd
November, 2010 titled Antra Rajya Bus Adda Samachar Patra Vikreta
Upbhokta Co-operative Store Society Ltd. v. Govt. of National Capital
Territory of Delhi & in W.P.(C) 6054/2003 decided on 16th March, 2011
titled Saudagar Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi has held that this Court in
exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot re-write the terms & conditions of
licence. Even otherwise, ex-servicemen cannot be placed at par with the
physically challenged persons.
10. The counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners be also
permitted to make a representation to the respondents for allowing them to
use the sites if any allotted to them for the purpose other than PCO.
Allowed. The representation if any so made by the petitioners be
considered in accordance with the Policy in that regard.
11. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. No order as
to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 8, 2011
pp..
