Delhi High Court
Dukhniwaran Taxi Stand vs Dda And Anr on 23 September, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
56$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7020/2011 & CM No.16062/2011 (for stay)
DUKHNIWARAN TAXI STAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Singh Sisodia, Adv.
Versus
DDA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma & Mr. Manu
Parashar, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Anjum Javed & Mohd. Narulla,
Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 23.09.2011
1. The petition seeks to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the
petitioner from the Taxi Stand earlier allotted to him.
2. The termination of the licence of the petitioner with respect to the
Taxi Stand was earlier challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C)
No.7971/2007. The said petition was entertained. However, when the said
writ petition was listed on 08.03.2011, the petitioner confined the relief only
to grant of six months time to vacate the Taxi Stand. Accordingly, the
following order was made:
"It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner be given six months time to vacate the Taxi
Stand at Vinobha Puri, Lajpat Nagar Chowk. Counsel also
states that in the meanwhile, the petitioner will make a
representation to respondent No.1 / DDA to allot another
Taxi Stand to it as per its policy.
In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to
vacate the aforementioned Taxi Stand within six months
from now. On the other hand, respondent No.1 / DDA is
directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner as
per its policy within six months from the date of its
receipt.
With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of,
with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again in
case it feels aggrieved by any further action of respondent
No.1/DDA. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner
will vacate the present Taxi Stand as stated by its counsel
irrespective of the decision that the DDA takes on its
representation".
and the petition disposed of in terms thereof.
3. Now when the time of six months granted to the petitioner is
expiring, this petition has been filed contending that since the respondent
No.1 DDA has not formulated its policy regarding Taxi Stands till now and
owing whereto the representation of the petitioner for allotment of another
Taxi Stand has not been disposed of as yet, the dispossession of the
petitioner from the Taxi Stand which he had undertaken to vacate be stayed
till allotment of another Taxi Stand to him.
4. No merit is found in the aforesaid claim of the petitioner. The
petitioner by filing this petition is seeking a review / setting aside of the
order aforesaid in the earlier writ petition filed by him. Significantly, the
petitioner under interim order in the earlier writ petition continued in
possession of the Taxi Stand for over four years after the termination of his
licence and ultimately when faced with dispossession, sought time of six
months to vacate the stand. From a reading of the order, it is clear that the
decision on the representation of the petitioner had no bearing on the
vacation of the Taxi Stand in possession of the petitioner.
5. The petitioner is therefore not found entitled to the relief claimed.
The petitioner is bound to comply with the undertaking given in the earlier
order and if fails to comply with the same, the respondents / concerned
authorities are at liberty to use force to dispossess the petitioner and to also
take steps for non compliance by the petitioner of the undertaking given to
the Court.
6. As far as the claim of the petitioner for alternative site is concerned, it
is case of the petitioner himself that the policy is under finalization. The
respondents remain bound by the direction given to them to consider and
dispose of the representation of the petitioner for an alternative site.
7. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dasti.
CM No.16063/2011 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exception.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
SEPTEMBER 23, 2011
„gsr‟
