Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Others vs Chandro Devi Decd Thr Lrs on 13 January, 2011
Author: Dipak Misra,Chief Justice
4.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 827/2010
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, Advocate.
versus
CHANDRO DEVI DECD THR LRS ..... Respondent
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 13.01.2011
CM No. 20589/2010 & 20590/2010
This is an application for condonation for condonation of delay
of 495 days as mentioned in the application for limitation. Registry
has also calculated 494 days delay. Before adverting to the issue of
limitation, we have thought it apt to dwell upon the merits of the case.
2. In this appeal, challenge is to the order dated 8th April, 2009
passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
3842/2007. On perusal of the order impugned, it is manifest that late
Deep Chand was granted a licence by the appellant to run two stalls
and a trolley at Nangloi Railway Station. Deep Chand breath his last
on 22nd November, 2001. Thereafter, the respondent, wife of late
Deep Chand approached the appellants on 15th December, 2001 asking
for transfer of the licence in her favour. Finally the appellants in
December, 2001 communicated to her. The communication reads as
follows:-
" Your request for re-opening of
holding has been considered after
depositing the revised L/fee arrears
w.e.f. 1.7.99.
Please deposit the arrears of
revised L/fee first. After clearing of
outstanding, transfer process will be
initiated."
3. Thereafter, the respondent-wife deposited the amount demanded.
4. Eventually on 24th June, 2004, the following letter was served on
the respondent:-
" In reference to your mentioned
request, it is informed that the
catering/vending contract of NNO Railway
Station held by your husband late Shri Deep
Chand had been expired on 30.11.2000
before his death. The contract at this stage
can be neither renewed nor transferred in
your name as per the catering policy.
You are, therefore, hereby directed to
stop sale, handover the peaceful possession
and remove your belongings."
5. It is not disputed by Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, learned counsel for
the appellant that the son of the respondent was running the stalls till
30th June, 2004. Learned single judge took note of factual matrix and
referred to clause 14.10, which deals with the application of new policy
to the existing licence and clause 15.3 which deals with tenure and
thereafter in paragraphs 8 and 9 has expressed his view as follows:-
"8. Now, it is well-settled that every facet of
state functioning has to be fair, reasonable
and non-arbitrary. These are bed-rock
principles integral to the Fundamental Right
to equality that each citizen is entitled to
enjoy under the Constitution of India. The
respondent, as a public agency, is bound by
these standards. In the present case, the
petitioner's husband was agitated about
increase of license fee when the license
tenure ended. According to the averments, a
matter not disputed - the stall was allowed
to function till 13.12.2001. In this
background, even if one ignores the
allegation that a request was made for
extension of license in October, 2000, the
fact remains that the respondents were aware
about the petitioner's request for transfer of
the license fee and its renewal; that which is
clear from their letter of December 2001
advising her to deposit the arrears of license
fee. In these circumstances, after having led
the petitioner to believe that the request
would be processed duly in accordance with
the policy, the respondents could not have,
about three years later completely turned
around and stated that the renewal was not
possible since her license expired on
30.11.2000, before her husband's death.
9. The Court is also of the opinion that
having almost lured the petitioner to deposit
arrears of license fee on the belief that the
request for transfer of license fee would be
acceded to on its merits in terms of paras
14.10 and 15.3 of the policy, the
respondents' action in denying that the
benefit completely is contrary to their
norms. The intent of para 14.3 is to enable
existing operators the benefit of extension of
license; a tenure is also indicated."
6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that there is a renewal
clause and the benefit should not have been denied when the
respondent deposited the amount being asked by the appellant. Thus,
there is no justification not to deny benefit.
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not find any merit in the
appeal and accordingly there is no warrant to issue notice for
condonation of delay and the application for condonation of delay
stands rejected and inevitable corollary, the appeal also stands
dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JANUARY 13, 2011
VKR
