Delhi High Court
Harbans Singh And Ors vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 20 July, 2016
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 20.07.2016
+ W.P.(C) 6103/2016
HARBANS SINGH AND ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suneel Dalal and Mr. Anshuman Upadhyay,
Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC, Mr. R.A. Iyer, Mr. S.D.
Sharma, DGM (DTIDC) Mr. Inder Raj Ghera,
Superintendent and Mr. Prem Mishra, LA (DTIDC)
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 25003/2016 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 6103/2016 and CM No. 25002/2016 (stay)
1. The petitioners impugn the Notice Inviting Tender bearing No.
DTIDC/612/June/2016 dated June, 2016 inviting bids for licensing
shops/kiosks at ISBTs Anand Vihar and Sarai Kale Khan.
2. It is contended that the petitioners were allotted their respective
shops at the ISBTs at Anand Vihar and Sarai Kale Khan. In terms of the
allotment the petitioners have been continuing from their respective dates
of allotment and have been paying the licence fee every year. It is
contended that the last extension was granted till 30.06.2015. Thereafter
the renewal of the licences of the petitioners was done for a period of four
months w.e.f. 01.07.2015 to 17.10.2015. It is contended that thereafter a
renewal was done from 17.10.2015 till 31.03.2016. The petitioner
contends that they have been regularly paying the licence fee in terms of
the renewal. The petitioners contend that they are entitled for extension of
the license and the respondents cannot issue the subject tender.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner
were mere licensees and they can only seek their rights under the licence.
It is contended the petitioners do not have any right of extension. It is
submitted that renewal was granted on till 31.03.2016 and thereafter
31.03.2016 no further renewal had been done.
4. It is submitted that as the licence of all the allottees has expired, the
respondents have decided to issue fresh licence by inviting tenders. It is
further contended that even the extension which was granted on
17.10.2015 was subject to execution of the letter incorporating the term
that 'no extension shall be made beyond 31.03.2016 under any
circumstances'. It is contended that the petitioners have even failed to
execute the said letter incorporating the above term and thus even that
extension is not in force. Learned counsel contends that notices to evict
have been already issued to the petitioners as also to the other allottees to
vacate and hand over the peaceful vacant possession by 31.07.2016.
5. It is contended that subject NIT has been issued pursuant to the
decision to allot the shops on licence basis by inviting tenders to avoid
any monopolistic tendencies. Learned counsel for the respondents further
contends that the petitioners have no right, title or interest to continue
with the licence or seek extension thereof. Reliance is placed on the
decision of the Supreme Court in 1985(3) SCC 'Ram & Shyam Co Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors.' in support of the said action. He further
submits that the disposal of public resources has to be through the process
of tender. He submits that the petitioners if they so wish may participate
in the tender process. He further submits that in any eventuality the
respondents are coming up with the fresh policy.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the tender is an
open tender and there is no restriction of the petitioners participating in
the tender subject to the petitioners not claiming any equities on the basis
of the existing allotment.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, under instructions from the
petitioners who are present in court, submits that the petitioners have
been running their respective shops for several years and have made huge
investments and would require three months time for the purposes of
disposal of the existing stock and for relocation.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the petitioners would
not press their petition if time is granted to the petitioners till 31.10.2016
to vacate and hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the respective
shops/kiosks to the respondents. He further prays that the petitioners may
be permitted to participate in the tender and in case the petitioners are
successful in the tender, they may be allotted the shops in terms of the
Notice Inviting Tender.
9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to
the petitioners to file, within a period of one week, undertaking before
this Court, in the form of an affidavit, undertaking that the petitioners
shall vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the respective shops in
their possession to the respondents on or before 31.10.2016. The
petitioners shall undertake not to sublet, assign or part with the possession
of the respective shop/kiosks or any part thereof. They shall also
undertake that they shall continue to pay the user and occupation charges,
till they hand over the peaceful and vacant possession, at the same rate at
which the licence fee was paid till 31.03.2016. They shall also continue to
comply with the other terms and conditions of their licences.
10. Subject to the petitioners filing the undertaking in the above terms,
the respondent shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners till
31.10.2016. In case the petitioners or any of the petitioners fail to file the
undertaking within the period of one week, no benefit of this order would
be available to such petitioner(s) who fail to file the undertaking.
11. The respondents are free to proceed with the NIT. The petitioners
would be at liberty to participate in the subject NIT. In case the
petitioners or any one of the petitioners are successful in the NIT, the
successful petitioner, if any, would be granted licence in accordance with
NIT subject to the petitioners complying with the other terms and
conditions of NIT.
12. It is clarified that no special equities, in respect of the subject NIT,
would flow to the petitioners on the basis of this order. It is further
clarified that the order has been passed only in respect of the petitioners
and would not operate in respect of the other licensees.
13. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
14. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of the Court
Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JULY 20, 2016
'rs'
