Delhi High Court
Rakesh Kumar Narang` vs Ndmc on 21 March, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4076/2010 & C.M.No.8096/2010
Date of Decision: 21st March, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAKESH KUMAR NARANG ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kuldeep Mansukhani, Adv. with
Ms.Anita Tiwari, Adv.
versus
NDMC ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Manoj K. Singh, Adv. with Mr.Arpan
Behl, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
: HIMA KOHLI, J (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for directions to restrain
the respondent/NDMC from dispossessing him from stall No.39, Municipal
Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi as also for setting aside and quashing
the order dated 24.05.2010 passed by the Estate Department of
respondent/NDMC cancelling the allotment of the stall in question.
2. The case set up by the petitioner in the present case is that the
subject stall had been licensed by the respondent/NDMC to one Sh. Anil
Malhotra, who had in turn entered into partnership with one Sh. Priyank
Verma and had applied to the respondent/NDMC for regularization of the
said partnership. The petitioner claims to be a transferee of the said stall
from Sh. Priyank Verma and submits that he is willing to comply with all the
requirements of respondent/NDMC for payment of license fee, earnest
money, security deposit etc. and that as per the Estate Policy of the
respondent/NDMC, the subletting/transfer made in his favour ought to be
regularized.
3. Notice was issued on the present petition on 14.06.2010.
Simultaneously, operation of the impugned order dated 24.05.2010 was
stayed. On 09.07.2010, counsel for respondent/NDMC had contended that
the Estate Policy was not applicable to the petitioner because the term of the
license for which the subject stall was allotted to Sh. Anil Malhotra, itself had
expired in the year 2002. The second submission made on behalf of
respondent/NDMC was that Sh. Anil Malhotra had given a statement to the
NDMC to the effect that he had never entered into a partnership with Sh.
Priyank Verma.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the counsel for
respondent/NDMC, NDMC was called upon to file a counter affidavit and
explain as to the circumstances in which Sh. Anil Malhotra had made a
statement which was being relied upon by it. Pursuant to the aforesaid
order, a counter affidavit was filed by respondent/NDMC on 08.10.2010
enclosing therewith the statement of the original allottee, Sh. Anil Malhotra,
recorded on 31.03.2010 and the statement made by Sh. Priyank Verma
recorded on 19.04.2010.
5. In the counter affidavit, it is stated by NDMC that Sh. Anil Malhotra
had been summoned by the Vigilance Department to conduct an enquiry
with regard to the partnership deed between Sh. Anil Malhotra and
Sh.Priyank Verma submitted by the petitioner in respect of the subject stall.
In his statement, Sh.Anil Malhotra had submitted that he had entered into a
partnership in respect of the subject stall with one Sh. Samit Grover on
15.12.2001 and that he had relinquished his right in respect of the stall in
favour of the aforesaid person vide Deed of Dissolution dated 29.01.2002.
Sh. Anil Malhotra, however, denied having entered into a partnership with
Sh. Priyank Verma in respect of the aforesaid stall and he further stated that
the signatures appearing on the partnership deed with Sh. Priyank Verma
were not his. The specimen signatures of Sh. Anil Malhotra were also taken
by the NDMC in his statement as recorded on 31.03.2010.
6. On 19.04.2010, Sh. Priyank Verma had appeared before the Vigilance
Department, NDMC and submitted that he had entered into a partnership in
respect of the subject stall with one Sh. Ashok Kumar Goel and that he had
further entered into a partnership with one Sh. Rakesh Kumar
Narang(petitioner herein) and had relinquished all his rights in the said stall
in favour of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Narang while handing over to him all the
papers relating to the said stall. Apart from the above, Sh. Priyank Verma
stated that he had never entered into a partnership with Sh. Anil Malhotra in
respect of the subject stall and nor was he aware as to how the stamp
papers of the partnership deed between him and Sh. Anil Malhotra were
available in the records of the NDMC. His statement was further recorded to
the effect that the signature appearing in the aforesaid partnership deed had
either been forged or scanned and that he has never signed any document
pertaining to partnership deed with Sh. Anil Malhotra.
7. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner herein lays a claim on the
subject stall on the strength of a partnership entered by Sh.Anil Malhotra
with Sh.Priyank Verma and a purported partnership deed entered into
between Sh. Priyank Verma and himself. Counsel for respondent/NDMC
states that the partnership deed, purportedly executed between Sh. Anil
Malhotra and Sh. Priyank Verma, had been submitted by the petitioner to
the NDMC and the same has been categorically denied by both, Sh. Priyank
Verma and Sh. Anil Malhotra as per their statements recorded by the
Vigilance Department. He thus, submits that the present petition is based
on a false claim as the document relied upon by the petitioner stands
demolished in the light of the statements made by Sh. Anil Malhotra and Sh.
Priyank Verma.
8. Counsel for the petitioner disputes the aforesaid submissions and
asserts that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of the subject stall in
terms of the policy of NDMC.
9. In view of the aforesaid factual position that emerges on the basis of
the counter affidavit filed by respondent/NDMC, it is quite clear that disputed
questions of facts have been raised by the petitioner that cannot be
adjudicated upon in the present proceedings. The present petition is,
accordingly, disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek his
remedies elsewhere, as may be available to him in law.
(HIMA KOHLI)
Judge
MARCH 21, 2012
'anb'/mk
