Smt. Meera Saini vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3572 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of decision: 27th July, 2011
+                        W.P.(C) 8555/2003

         SMT. MEERA SAINI                                     ..... Petitioner
                      Through:            Mr. K.C. Mittal, Adv.
                                   Versus
         GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.          ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Najmi Waziri, Ms. Neha
                               Kapoor & 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 petitioner was in the year 1991 allotted Counter-F in Arrival

Block of the Old Bus Stand ISBT, on licence basis. During the

implementation of the Metro Rail Projects Scheme, the petitioner as well

as several other allottees were required to be displaced. This writ petition

was filed seeking direction to the respondents to frame a scheme for

allotment of alternative site/shop to the petitioner and also as to the rate of

licence fee to be charged therefor.

2. Notice of the petition was issued and dispossession of the petitioner

stayed vide order dated 16th December, 2003. Thereafter this petition was

taken up along with several other petitions. All the said petitions including

this petition were disposed of vide order dated 3 rd August, 2004 holding

that no general direction qua licence fee could be issued in as much as each

of the petitioners was to be governed by the terms & conditions of his/her

respective agreement with the respondents and with a direction to the

respondents to consider the entitlement if any of the petitioners to

alternative site.

3. Intra court appeals were preferred including by the petitioner herein

and which were disposed of vide judgment dated 14 th December, 2009.

The Division Bench held that the case of the petitioner, who had been

allotted the counter/shop aforesaid without tender and under the Policy of

Allotment to Handicapped Persons could not be treated at par with the case

of others who had been allotted such counters/shops pursuant to tender.

The case of the petitioner having not been considered in the said light, the

matter was remanded to this Bench for decision afresh.

4. Upon such remand, on 18th May, 2010, it was noticed that the

petitioner was intended to be shifted/accommodated in the proposed food

court in the vicinity of ISBT in lieu of the shop/counter aforesaid. On 30 th

July, 2010 the counsel for the respondent informed that the petitioner owed

a sum of `16,57,380/- towards arrears of licence fee. The petitioner of

course controverted the same. However on 21st March, 2011 the counsel

for the respondents stated that the dispute concerning the arrears of licence

fee was referable to arbitration between the parties. It was further stated

that the licence of the petitioner had come to an end as far back as in the

year 2000 and had not been renewed since then. It was contended that the

petitioner had no vested right to demand continuation of the licence and

there was currently no Policy for allotment of shops to disabled person and

as and when such allotment is to be made, the petitioner shall be

considered therein. Reliance in this regard was placed on judgment dated

23rd November, 2010 of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA

No.258/2010 titled Antra Rajya Bus Adda Samachar Patra Vikreta

Upbhokta Co-operative Store Society Ltd. v. Govt. of National Capital

Territory of Delhi . On 26th July, 2011 the counsel for the respondents

expressed urgency since owing to the interim order in this petition the

petitioner could not be removed and which was stated to be coming in the

way of the development work underway at ISBT. The counsels have been

heard today.

5. As far as the dispute qua licence fee is concerned, the same as

aforesaid does not fall for adjudication in this petition and is left to be

decided in accordance with law. The counsels also have not addressed on

the said aspect.

6. The occupation of the petitioner of the allotted site being as a

licencee, the petitioner cannot have and in fact the counsel for the

petitioner has not urged that the petitioner has any indefeasible right with

respect thereto. It is also not in dispute that the work of re-development of

ISBT is underway. Thus it cannot be said that the proposed removal of the

petitioner therefrom is malafide in any manner whatsoever.

7. The only question which remains is thus of the entitlement of the

petitioner to relocation. The counsel for the respondents has stated that the

petitioner has already been allotted alternative Shop No.10 in the food

court outlet at ISBT, Kashmiri Gate. A copy of the letter dated 21 st June,

2011 of the Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

in this regard has been handed over in the Court along with a site plan

showing the location of the said shop. The counsel for the respondents has

contended that the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue at the

existing site, thereby holding up the entire work of re-development. He has

in this regard also invited attention to the judgment dated 16th March, 2011

of this Court in W.P.(C)6054/2003 titled Saudagar Singh v. Govt. of NCT

of Delhi and which writ petition also was preferred by allottees of shops in

ISBT. This Court held that being a licencee, there is no vested right to ask

for continuation of the licence and the terms & conditions of licence

prescribing the licence fee could not be re-written by this Court.

8. The only grievance left of the counsel for the petitioner is as to the

alternative site. It is contended that the Shop No.10 allotted in the food

court is not accessible to handicapped persons as the petitioner and her

husband are. They thus claim that the same is not a suitable alternative site

for the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be compelled to vacate the

existing site till a suitable site is allotted.

9. Mr. Waziri, Counsel for the respondents controverts the aforesaid

and has stated that the Shop No.10 is accessible on a wheelchair. He also

assures that if the petitioner is found to be having any difficulty with

respect thereto, arrangement therefor will be made.

10. I may record that though it is recorded in the judgment dated 14 th

December, 2009 aforesaid of the Division Bench in intra court appeal

preferred by the petitioner that the initial allotment to the petitioner was on

account of her physical disability but the counsel for the respondents has

controverted the said fact and the counsel for the petitioner has been unable

to show any documents of allotment on such ground. The counsel for the

petitioner could also not controvert that the licence of the petitioner had

expired as far back as on 11th March, 2000.

11. I therefore do not find the petitioner to be entitled to the relief

claimed in this petition. The petition is dismissed; however the respondents

are directed to ensure that the alternative shop allotted to the petitioner is

accessible to persons with physical disability and in accordance with the

guidelines in that regard. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) JULY 27, 2011 pp..