Delhi High Court
Nav Yuvak Uttarakhan Dram Lila ... vs Public Works Department Govt Of ... on 30 September, 2016
$~189
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30.09.2016
+ W.P.(C) 8663/2016
NAV YUVAK UTTARAKHAN DRAM LILA SAMITI & ANR
..... Petitioners
versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI &
ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Renu Gupta, Ms.Shruti Gupta and Ms.Shivangi Vaid,
Advs..
For the Respondents: Mr.Asish Nischal with Mr.Arun Nischal, Advocates for
Respondent Nos.2&3.
Mr.V.K. Goyal with Mr.Abhinav Singh, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks permission to organize Ramlila at Shri
Ram Park, Gulabi Bagh and quashing of the permission granted to
respondent No.2. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner
had applied prior in time i.e on 25.07.2016 for grant of permission and
as per the response received by the petitioner through RTI, the
application of the respondent No.2 was dated 27.07.2016. It is
contended that as per the policy of the PWD, the person who had
applied prior in time should have been granted the permission. In
contravention of the same, the PWD has granted permission to
respondent No.2.
2. It is further contended that the petitioners for several years have
been holding Ram Lila Celebrations at Shri Ram Park.
3. Counsel appearing for PWD submits that though the application
of the petitioner was received prior in time, however the Competent
Authority, i.e. the Principal Secretary (PWD) granted permission to
the respondent No.2.
4. Counsel for respondent No.2 contends that the application of
the respondent No.2 was allowed on 11.08.2016 and thereafter all the
requisite permissions/clearances/NOC have been obtained by
respondent No.2 from the concerned authorities and several artists and
others support staff are ready for the stage performances which are to
commence from 02.10.2016. He submits that the said respondent will
be greatly prejudiced, in case the allotment is cancelled at this belated
stage.
5. The respondent No.1 was directed to produce the original file.
Perusal of the same shows that there is no reasoning or rational
available on the file as to why the application of respondent No.2 was
chosen by the Principal Secretary over the application of the
petitioner.
6. The respondent/PWD in absence of any rules/guidelines should
have followed the first come and first serve rule. However, despite the
said infraction, I am not inclined to interfere in the allotment of
respondent No.2 at this belated stage since the function is to
commence from 02.10.2016 and the requisite permissions, clearances
and NOC have been obtained by the said respondent. The respondent
No. 2 is to have stage performances and all artists are also ready for
the same. Further the permission was granted to respondent No.2 on
11.08.2016. In my view the equity is not in favour of the petitioners
are thus I am not inclined to interfere with the permission granted to
respondent No. 2 at this late a stage.
7. Since the petition is not being entertained only on this ground,
it is clarified that the contention of the petitioner, that they have right
to hold Ram Lila celebrations in the said park because they have been
holding the same in the said park for several years, is left open. The
mere fact that the respondent No.2 has been permitted to use the said
park and perform the Ram Lila celebrations this year and will not
create any special equities in their favour.
8. However, the respondent/PWD is directed to consider such
applications hereinafter on first come and first serve basis, subject to
compliance with the other terms and conditions.
9. The Writ Petition is disposed of.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
neelam
