Kuldeep Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 1211 Del

                                                                             #35
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 7182/2010

       KULDEEP SINGH                       ..... Petitioner
                    Through                Mr. A. Maitri with Ms. Radhika
                                           Chandershekhar, Advocates

                           versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.               ..... Respondents
                     Through               Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Advocate for R-1
                                           and 2.

%                                   Date of Decision : 06th March, 2014


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                           JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

1. Present writ petition has been filed primarily seeking a direction to restrain respondent nos. 2 and 3 from terminating/cancelling the petitioner's allotment of STD/ISD/PCO booth at Railway Yatri Niwas, New Delhi. Petitioner also challenges the policy/guidelines/notification No. 2000/TG/IV/10/P/STD/PCO dated 20th October, 2009 issued by the Railway Board.

2. The relevant facts of the present case are that petitioner is a physically handicapped person who had been allocated an STD/ISD/PCO booth by respondent no. 2 in Delhi in 1993.

3. Subsequently, agreement for fixed period was executed between the parties. Admittedly, as of today, agreements between petitioner and respondent no. 2 have come to an end by efflux of time.

4. It is pertinent to mention that agreement between the parties not only contains an arbitration clause but also permits the respondent no. 2 to terminate the same after giving a thirty days notice.

5. In 2002, a new STD/ISD/PCO booth policy was issued by respondent no. 2. According to this policy, booths were not to be granted beyond ten years to any particular allottee (Refer Clause 8.7 of Policy).

6. In the present case, ten years have already lapsed, since the 2002 policy came into effect.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner challenges the cancellation of petitioner's booth on the ground that it is vitiated by malafide as according to him the impugned decision of the respondent is part of a design to take over all the STD/ISD/PCO booths. He lays emphasis on the fact that petitioner is physically handicapped and at the moment 34 STD/ISD/PCO booths are lying vacant with respondent in Delhi.

8. He also states that due to mobile revolution, no one is coming forward to accept respondent's STD/ISD/PCO booth.

9. Though this Court has sympathy for the physically handicapped, yet it is of the view that State largesse should not be monopolized/cornered by a few physically handicapped individuals.

10. It is also settled law that it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are our courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of

a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. [See: Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India and Others, (2002) 2 SCC 333].

11. Consequently, the maximum time period of ten years prescribed in 2002 Policy is fair and reasonable.

12. This Court is further of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the disputes between the parties are contractual in nature. It is pertinent to mention that petitioner has no legal right to continue with possession of the booth in question as the Agreements have expired by efflux of time and they are determinable in nature. Further, the Agreements have a dispute resolution mechanism, namely an arbitration clause.

13. However, keeping in view the intent and objectives of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 as well as 2002 policy, respondents are directed to allocate all vacant STD/ISD/PCO booths in accordance with its 2002 policy within a period of three months.

14. Out of the STD/ISD/PCO booths to be allocated to the physically handicapped, it is directed that the vacant booths in the said category would be allocated first and the petitioner would be asked to vacate / handover possession after all the vacant booths have been awarded to the physically handicapped. In the event, petitioner's booth is specifically bid for, then the petitioner would be accommodated in a vacant booth, if available, in the same category on completion of formalities. It is also clarified that in the event, no application is received for petitioner's STD/ISD/PCO booths, respondents will allow the petitioner to continue to occupy the booth in his possession.

15. With the aforesaid observation and direction, present petition stands disposed of.

MANMOHAN, J MARCH 06, 2014 rn