Delhi High Court
Naveen vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 13 April, 2015
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4419/2012 & CM 9143/2012
NAVEEN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Ms. Aarohi and
Ms. Chandrika Gupta, Advs.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing
Counsel for DDA.
Mr. Jayendra, Adv. for DUSIB.
Mr. Shantam Shivam, Adv. for R1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 13.04.2015
1. This is a writ petition, which impugns order dated 2.7.2012 passed by
respondent No.1, which in effect represents the Drug Control Department.
2. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the petitioner's
application for grant of a fresh licence was rejected, primarily, on the ground
that it had not submitted allotment letter from the Delhi Development
Authority (in short DDA) in respect of the subject property, in issue, which
is, located at F-6/25, Sultan Puri JJ Colony, Delhi (hereafter referred to as
the subject property).
3. The impugned order also makes a reference to the fact that prior to the
said order, a memo dated 20.6.2012 was served on the petitioner, wherein a
reference had been made to the shortcomings which the petitioner was
required to fulfil within ten days, and that, the petitioner, had not replied to
the said memo. The memo dated 20.6.2012, which has been appended at
page 44 of the paper book, raises the same objection which is raised in the
impugned order i.e., with regard to the proof ownership of the subject
property.
4. The petitioner, being aggrieved, approached this court by way of a
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Notice in this petition was issued on 25.7.2012. At that stage,
assertions made on behalf of the petitioner by its counsel were recorded
which, in effect, seem to suggest what the petitioner had in his custody was
the "possession slip".
6. To be noted, the subject property is located in jughi jhopri cluster (in
short JJ cluster).
7. During the hearing, at a subsequent date, i.e. on 9.1.2013, this Court
had inter alia recorded the stand of respondent No.1 that the policy in place
for allotment of plots in JJ cluster required the allottees not to transfer the
premises allotted to him and, if that was done, the allotment was liable to he
cancelled.
8. It was noted in the hearing held on 9.1.2013 that this aspect of the
matter was not articulated in the impugned order dated 2.7.2012.
Nevertheless, since respondent No.1, represented by its Drug Inspector
(Legal Cell), Mr. R.K. Chawla, adverted to the said policy, counsel for the
petitioner sought time to file an affidavit to show that there were several
instances where transferees were operating pharmacies from JJ clusters.
Counsel for the petitioner was given an opportunity to file an affidavit,
accordingly. The petitioner has placed on record an affidavit dated
27.2.2013. Along with the said affidavit, a chart has been filed, which is
marked as Annexure PX-2. It is submitted based on the annexure, by the
counsel for the petitioner, that all entities referred to therein are those which
are running pharmacies in JJ clusters, and that, they are the transferees of the
original allottees.
9. I may also note that on 9.1.2013, DDA was impleaded as a party. The
record shows that DDA has taken a stand that it has no role in the matter.
This stand is affirmed by Mr. Sabharwal, who appears for the DDA.
9.1 The record would also show that this aspect of the matter perhaps
came to fore at the hearing of 11.12.2013 when, this court, impleaded the
Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (in short DUSIB) as a party to the
proceedings.
10. DUSIB, was thus, impleaded as respondent No.3 in the matter.
Consequent thereto, DUSIB filed a short affidavit. The affidavit is reflective
of the fact that the subject property was allotted in favour of Sant Lal, son of
Mr. Summer, and that, a possession slip bearing No.A/17738 dated
21.5.1981, was issued in his favour. The affidavit also adverts to the fact
that the subject property is occupied by the petitioner, and that, commercial
activity is being carried on in it. Therefore, the stand of respondent No.3,
i.e. DUSIB is that Sant Lal was given possession of the subject property,
only for residential purposes.
11. Counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice orders passed by
this court in several writ petitions which, broadly, take note of the fact that
MPD-2021 permits pharmacy/chemist shops to be run in JJ clusters. These
writ petitions are numbered as W.P.(C) Nos.7220/2010, 1148/2009,
5392/201 and 5244/2011. The orders passed in these petitions, in seriatim,
are orders dated: 4.1.2011, 4.9.2009, 11.8.2010 and 20.7.2011.Reference in
the orders passed has been made to clause 15.6.3 sub-cluase (xv) of the
MPD-2021.
12. Having regard to the aforesaid what emerges is as follows:-
(i) The petitioner, had replied to the memorandum dated 20.6.2012. This
is an aspect which was ignored in the impugned order.
(ii) The petitioner, has in his custody a possession slip, which is reflective
of the fact that the original allottee was one Sant Lal; a fact accepted by
DUSIB.
(iii) This court has passed orders in the past directing respondent No.1 to
consider the applications for grant of drugs licence under the Drug and
Cosmetics Rules, 1945 based on the contention raised before it, that it is
permissible to run pharmacies from JJ clusters.
(iv) The record is also suggestive of the fact that even though pharmacies
are run by transferees (see Annexure-PX2), no coercive measures have been
taken by respondent No.3 to cancel such allotments.
13. As a matter of fact, in this particular case also, even though it is
known that the petitioner is occupying the subject property, no coercive
steps have been taken, perhaps in line with other JJ clusters where
transferees, as borne out from the record, continue to operate pharmacies.
14. Therefore, having regard to the above, the impugned order is set
aside. Respondent No.1 would reconsider the application of the petitioner
for grant of a licence under the Drug and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
Respondent No.1 will also bear in mind the orders of this Court passed in
the aforementioned writ petitions.
15. Needless to say, the application would be decided on merits with
regard to the suitability and other pre-requisites, if any, that the petitioner
may be required to comply with under the extant provisions of law, as
applicable to the petitioner.
16. The aforementioned exercise will be carried out by respondent No.1
with expedition, though not later than ten weeks from today.
17. The petition is disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
APRIL 13, 2015
s.pal
