Delhi High Court
Din Bandhu Dass vs Mcd & Ors on 20 April, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9036/2011 & C.M. No.20335/2011
Decided on: 20.04.2012
IN THE MATTER OF
DIN BANDHU DASS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gaurav Bhanadiney, Adv.
versus
MCD & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Kshitij Bhardwaj, Adv. for
Ms.Shobhaa Gupta, Adv. for R-1/MCD.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/contractor, who
is running a canteen in the complex of respondent No.3/hospital situated at
Maharaja Ranjit Singh Marg, New Delhi, praying inter alia for directions to
the respondent No.1/MCD to return his articles seized by the department
pursuant to a raid undertaken by the officers of the MCD on 04.07.2011.
2. Counsel for the petitioner states that on 1.5.2011, the petitioner
was awarded a contract for a period of one year to run a canteen in the
respondent No.3/hospital. On 4.7.2011, some officials of the respondent
No.1/MCD had visited the premises of respondent No.3/hospital and
dismantled the entire kiosk of the petitioner and taken away the counter,
cooked food items, utensils, etc. Immediately thereupon, the petitioner had
approached the Director of the respondent No.3/hospital and apprised him of
the events that had taken place on 4.7.2011 and requested that the matter
be taken up with the respondent No.1/MCD.
3. It is the stand of the petitioner that after respondent
No.3/hospital was apprised of the aforesaid action taken by the respondent
No.1/MCD, it addressed a letter dated 27.8.2011 to the MCD enclosing
therewith a copy of the letter dated 6.7.2011 addressed by the petitioner to
hospital, and requested it to release the seized articles to the petitioner.
Further, respondent No.1/MCD was requested to remove the unauthorized
vendors, who were operating their business from outside the main gate of
the hospital complex. Counsel for the petitioner states that the present
petition was occasioned on account of failure on the part of respondent
No.1/MCD to respond to the aforesaid request made on his behalf by the
respondent No.3/hospital.
4. Notice was issued on the present petition, vide order dated
23.12.2011, and a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1/MCD
on 14.2.2012. In its counter affidavit, respondent No.1/MCD has averred
that the petitioner/contractor has defaulted in complying with the terms and
conditions of the allotment of the canteen as stipulated by the respondent
No.3/hospital, particularly Clause No.8 thereof, whereunder he was required
to abide by the municipal rules relating to sale of edibles and beverages and
to obtain a municipal licence from the competent authority. It is averred
that as the petitioner had failed to obtain any licence from the respondent
No.1/MCD, he could not be permitted to sell edible items within the hospital
complex. It is further averred that the petitioner was found running his
trade outside the allotted site within the hospital complex, by placing tables
open to sky in an unhygienic condition, and as per Clause 5 of the terms and
conditions of the allotment, the petitioner was not permitted to use LPG
cylinder in three outlets, i.e., in OPD, near OT outlets and the outlet near
parking. Despite the same, he was found to be using an LPG cylinder to
cook food at the aforesaid site from where he could only have sold the
prepared food by re-heating the items as prescribed by respondent
No.3/hospital. It is thus stated that the petitioner was challaned on
13.9.2011 for running the trade without a licence and in an unhygienic
condition.
5. Lastly, it is stated by learned counsel for the respondent/MCD
that the articles that were seized at the site on 04.07.2011 by the officers of
respondent No.1/MCD, were not released to the petitioner at the
representation forwarded by the respondent No.3/hospital for the reason
that as per the applicable rules, seized articles can only be released upon an
application to be submitted by the owner of the articles and that the
petitioner who owned the articles had not submitted any such representation
to the respondent No.1/MCD.
6. Counsel for the petitioner states that if the non-release of the
articles seized by the respondent No.1/MCD is only because it had not
received any application directly from the petitioner, he shall submit an
application to the respondent No.1/MCD for the release of the aforesaid
articles within one week. Counsel for the petitioner further states that
the contract granted by the respondent No.3/hospital to the petitioner
expires at the end of this month and if the petitioner succeeds in a tender
that is likely to be floated by the hospital in May 2012 for running the
aforesaid canteen in its premises, he shall apply to the respondent
No.1/MCD for obtaining a health trade licence for selling edibles/food articles
from the canteen.
7. In view of the aforesaid submission, it is directed that upon the
petitioner submitting such a request to the respondent No.1/MCD, it shall
process the same as per law, and release the seized articles to him within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such a request. As regard
the directions sought by the petitioner to the respondent No.1/MCD to take
action for removal of the unauthorized hawkers/kiosks from outside the
complex of the respondent No.3/hospital, counsel for respondent No.1/MCD
assures the Court MCD has been regularly taking such removal action in the
area and shall continue to undertaking such an exercise in future also on a
regular basis.
8. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, along
with the pending application, while leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JUDGE
APRIL 20, 2012
'anb'/sk
