Saudagar Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1519 Del

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                W.P. (C) 6054/2003

                                       Reserved on: February 28, 2011
                                       Decision on: March 16, 2011

       SAUDAGAR SINGH                           ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Rishikesh, Advocate.

                       versus

       GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                 ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. N. Waziri, Standing Counsel with
                    Mr. Anjum Javed, Mr. Shoaib Haider, Mr. Prem
                    Kumar Mishra & Ms. Neha Kapoor, Advocates

               W.P. (C) 5060/2008 & CMs 9694/08 & 1722/2011

       UPDESH BAKSHI                             ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. Rishikesh, Advocate.

                       versus

       GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                 ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. N. Waziri, Standing Counsel with
                    Mr. Anjum Javed, Mr. Shoaib Haider, Mr. Prem
                    Kumar Mishra & Ms. Neha Kapoor, Advocates.

        CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

       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 in Digest?        No

                               JUDGMENT

16.03.2011

1. Both these writ petitions involve common questions and are

accordingly being disposed of together by this judgment. The Petitioners

were licencees of shops at the Inter-state Bus Terminal („ISBT‟) at

Kashmere Gate. The challenge in the present petitions is to the amount of

licence fee being charged from the Petitioners on the ground that it is

exorbitant and arbitrary. Also, challenge is to the omission of the

Respondents in allotting alternative shops to those shopkeepers at the

ISBT who were dislocated on account of the project of the Delhi Metro

Rail Corporation („DMRC‟).

2. The case of the Petitioners is that in 1999 they were asked to hand over

the vacant possession of the shops for the DMRC project with the

assurance that they would be allotted shops at Dhaba Block and Departure

Block.

3. The Petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6054 of 2003, Saudagar

Singh, states that he was initially allotted Shop No. 57, opposite a public

lavatory in the DTC Block. But he was unable to earn even the licence fee

there for want of sufficient business due to the continuous foul smell. At

his request, he was shifted to Shop No. 68 admeasuring 27 sq. ft. at the

Departure Block. He states that he was made to pay the licence fee of Rs.

17,500/- per month and his request for being shifted to a small shop in any

other ISBT as per policy was not acceded to by the Respondents. In the

circumstances the present petition was filed.

4. As regards the Petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5060 of 2008,

Updesh Bakshi, he was allotted an alternative shop being Shop No. 5 at a

monthly licence fee of Rs. 16,660/-. He relies on an order dated 3rd August

2004 passed by this Court in a batch of similar other writ petitions. In

Writ Petition (Civil) No 3005 of 2003, this Court directed that the

Petitioner Suresh Kumar Arora be treated at par with the other evictees of

the ISBT who were rehabilitated.

5. Initially Saudagar Singh‟s petition was disposed of on 3 rd August 2004

by the learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the terms of the

agreement entered into between the parties could not be re-written and

that the Petitioner was bound to pay the licence fee in terms of the said

agreement. The said order was set aside as regards Saudagar Singh by a

Division Bench of this Court on 14th December 2009 stating that the

individual facts of the petition have not been discussed.

6. In the counter affidavit in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6054 of 2003 by

Saudagar Singh the Department of Transport („DoT‟), Government of

NCT of Delhi („GNCTD‟) stated that the Petitioner had been allotted

Shop No. 68 in the Departure Block of the ISBT, Kashmere Gate

admeasuring 37.06 sq. ft. on 8th June 1989. One of the terms and

conditions was to clear the arrears in respect of the earlier Shop No. 28 in

Dhaba Block and Shop No. 57, DTC Block. He had to deposit one

month‟s advance licence fee amounting to Rs. 9,096/- and three months‟

licence fee as security deposit. The licence was for a period of 11 months.

The licence was kept renewed. The last renewal was for a period up to

19th May 2001 whereby the Petitioner agreed to pay a monthly rental fee

of Rs. 15,561/-. It is stated that his licence has not been renewed

thereafter. However, the Petitioner stopped paying the licence fee after

19th May 2001. As on 12th December 2003, i.e. the date of filing the

counter affidavit, the Petitioner owed to the Respondents Rs. 2,75,400/- as

arrears of licence fee.

7. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit that the Petitioner Saudagar

Singh had filed Civil Suit No. 140 of 2002 in the court of Senior Civil

Judge, Delhi which he subsequently withdrew stating that he would try to

settle the matter outside the court. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn

on 9th September 2003.

8. It is pointed out that the Petitioner‟s shop was not at the Dhaba Block

and, therefore, was not covered by the decision of the GNCTD to allot

alternative shops to those situated at the Dhaba Block in the ISBTs at

Kashmere Gate, Anand Vihar and Sarai Kale Khan by increasing the

licence fee by 25%.

9. Petitioner Saudagar Singh‟s application for amendment of the writ

petition was allowed by this Court. The amended prayer was for a

direction to the Respondents to fix licence fee in accordance with the

provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 („DRC Act‟) and the

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 („PP

Act‟) after taking into consideration the area of land, the cost of

construction and determination of standard rent.

10. As regards Updesh Bakshi, in the counter affidavit filed, it was

pointed out that this is the third round of litigation. Updesh Bakshi had

earlier filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14616 of 2004 and Writ Petition

(Civil) No. 3297 of 2007 which he then withdrew with liberty to move an

application before the Respondent "for consideration of the quantum of

the licence fee in terms of the policy applicable to allottees such as the

Petitioner." However, Updesh Bakshi‟s representation was declined. The

stand of the Respondents is that Updesh Bakshi has not been treated any

differently from the allottees of alternative shops which were originally in

the Dhaba Block.

11. By an order dated 7th July 2010 passed by this Court Updesh Bakshi

was also permitted to amend his petition on similar lines as in the

companion writ petition by Saudagar Singh. In the said order this Court

noticed that in the earlier round of litigation a Division Bench of this

Court had permitted the Petitioners to deposit 50% of the arrears of

licence fee as a condition for grant of stay. This Court required the

Petitioners to produce details of the payments made by them in

compliance with the above directions. On 30th July 2010 this Court

directed the Respondents to file an affidavit explaining the basis for

fixation of licence fee for the shops at the ISBTs.

12. Pursuant to the above directions, the Respondents filed an additional

affidavit on 20th August 2010 enclosing a chart explaining the basis for

fixation of the licence fee. It was mentioned that the licence fee was on

the basis of the highest tendered rate offered by the licencees of particular

shops. Copies of the policy dated 10th November 1993 and the relevant

Circulars concerning fixation of licence fees were enclosed with the said

affidavit. In addition, it was pointed out that a new corporation, the Delhi

Transport Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. („DTICL‟) had taken over the

ISBTs. DTICL was, therefore, now responsible for allotment of shops and

charging of licence fee.

13. In view of the above development, the DTICL was impleaded as a

party Respondent in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6054 of 2003 on 10th

February 2011.

14. Numerous adjournments were sought thereafter by the counsel for the

Petitioners for one reason or the other. The petitions were finally heard on

28th February 2011.

15. Mr. Rishikesh, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners relied

upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi

v. State of U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212 and Jamshed Hormush Wadia v.

Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai (2004) 3 SCC 214, to urge that

licence fee charged from the Petitioners could not be fanciful or arbitrary.

16. On the other hand, Mr. Najmi Waziri and Mr. Anjum Javed, learned

counsel appearing for the Respondents pointed out that the Petitioners

were not discriminated against in the matter of charging of licence fees. It

was submitted that the Petitioners‟ licences were no longer valid as the

respective periods of licence had expired. It was submitted that the

fixation of licence fees was a matter of policy and the Court ought not to

interfere.

17. The above submissions have been considered by this Court. The

primary grievance of the Petitioners is about the quantum of licence fees

charged by the Respondents for the shops allotted to the Petitioners. The

licences issued to both the Petitioners having expired, they do not have a

vested right to ask for continuation of the licence. The Division Bench of

this Court in Antra Rajya Bus Adda Samachar Patra Vikreta Upbhokta

Co-operative Store Society Ltd. v. GNCTD (decision dated 23rd

November 2010 in LPA No. 285/2010), has been held that there is no

vested right in a licencee to ask for continuation of the licence. As regards

the quantum of licence fees, this Court cannot possibly direct Respondents

to re-write the terms and conditions of the licence. The chart annexed with

the additional affidavit filed by the Respondents shows that there was a

rational basis for fixation of licence fee. The Petitioners cannot insist that

the revision of licence fee should be in accordance with the provisions of

the DRC Act or the PP Act.

18. In the circumstances, there is no merit in either of the writ petitions

and they are dismissed as such, but in the circumstances, with no orders as

to costs. The interim orders are vacated and the pending applications are

dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

MARCH 16, 2011 ak